Tag Archives: Gun control

Will Scott Frantz join him?

The Narcissist of Riverside - at least Barry takes his selfie with a hot chick

The Narcissist of Riverside – at least Barry takes his selfies with hot chicks

Peter Tesei to slither over to anti-gun rally next week. There’s nothing much left to do in Connecticut but to finish the job and confiscate weapons. Jonathan Perloe, one of the Greenwich residents behind this rally, is for exactly that. Tesei, like Frantz, like our other selectman, Drew Marzullo, claims he only wants to see ‘common sense” regulations. Well the boys of Greenwich got that last year and exactly as predicted, they’re back for more.

UPDATE: On Saturday, March 8, from 12:30 to 2 p.m. at Town Hall. It’s (yet another) bicyclist rally. Pray for snow*, but be there.

* Or bring bags of caltrops



Filed under Uncategorized

Hey Drew, read this!

There goes Fountain's vote, damn it

There goes Fountain’s vote, damn it

Reader Publius sends in this link to a study from Harvard (Harvard!) on guns and violence, “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?  The conclusion of the authors: it would not. This wouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with Massachusetts’ own experience with strict gun laws which, enacted in 1998, were as severe as those just passed here in Connecticut and enacted with the same enthusiasm and hope for change. The reason proponents of Connecticut’s “common sense” laws maintained a deadly silence on the Massachusetts experiment was that those laws, while causing legal gun ownership to plummet, also saw murders almost double (65 in 1998, 122, 2011), armed robbery increase 20.7% and armed assaults rise 26.7%.

But enough about failed experiments of the past, what do these Harvard academics think now? Here are some excerpts:

So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder. By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use.

Startling as the foregoing may seem, it represents the cross‐national norm, not some bizarre departure from it. If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad based cross‐national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. Consider, for example, the wide divergence in murder rates among Continental European nations with widely divergent gun ownership rates.

The non‐correlation between gun ownership and murder is reinforced by examination of statistics from larger numbers of nations across the developed world. Comparison of “homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty‐six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990–1995” to gun ownership levels showed “no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate.” Consistent with this is a later European study of data from 21 nations in which “no significant correlations [of gun ownership levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found.”


The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation.

Thus both sides of the gun prohibition debate are likely wrong in viewing the availability of guns as a major factor in the incidence of murder in any particular society. Though many people may still cling to that belief, the historical, geographic, and demographic evidence explored in this Article provides a clear admonishment. Whether gun availability is viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or declining murder rates. Whether causative or not, the consistent international pattern is that more guns equal less murder and other violent crime. Even if one is inclined to think that gun availability is an important factor, the available international data cannot be squared with the mantra that more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death. Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime. 


Filed under Right wing nut rantings

An immodest proposal

Senator Martin Looney

Senator Martin Looney

Connecticut Democrat Majority Leader Martin Looney goes after alcohol.

Martin Looney, Majority Leader of the Connecticut Senate, introduced legislation today that would impose new controls on liquor sales and possession of alcohol in private homes and businesses.

“Approximately 80,000 deaths are attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States,” Looney declared at a press conference this morning, citing Center for Disease Control statistics. “Although that number pales against the 443,000 deaths caused by smoking, it is more than 5X the 14,000 homicides caused by firearms. My bill to confiscate firearms is on its way to passage by our legislature and my proposal to quadruple the tax on cigarettes will end smoking within 15 years. With those two goals accomplished, it is time now to turn our attention to alcohol, the third leading lifestyle-related cause of death for the nation. Excessive alcohol use is responsible for 2.3 million years of potential life lost annually, or an average of about 30 years of potential life lost for each death. In 2006, there were more than 1.2 million emergency room visits and 2.7 million physician office visits due to excessive drinking, while the economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2006 were estimated at $223.5 billion. This has to stop, now.”

Looney’s proposed bill would affect alcohol sales and possession in a myriad of ways, including:

• The sale of beer in containers larger than 12-oz bottles or cans is prohibited; sales shall be limited to one six-pack per month.

• Hard liquor shall be sold in no container larger than 16 oz.; sales shall be limited to one quart per month.

• Possession of alcohol in private residences home shall be restricted to registered, licensed consumers only, with a mandatory background check before issuance or any such license. Felons, persons having ever been adjudged mentally ill or convicted of domestic abuse or driving while intoxicated shall be barred from purchasing, possessing or consuming alcohol. Proof of registration must be provided at all points of sale of alcohol including retail establishments, restaurants, bars and private clubs.

• The sale, transfer or gift of alcohol to an unregistered consumer shall be a felony punishable by a fine not exceeding $100,000 and a prison term of not less than one and not more than five years, with a one year mandatory term.

• All liquor in a private residence shall be stored in a locked cabinet or safe, with annual inspections of all such liquor storage units to be performed by the Connecticut State Police or by such liquor control officers as the state police may designate.

• Importation of alcohol from outside the state of Connecticut or interstate online sales are prohibited.

• A new tax of $2 per oz. of alcohol, beer or spirits or wine, will be imposed beginning January 1, 2014. Proceeds of said tax shall be divided, 50% to the state’s general fund, 50% to alcohol cessation programs and repayment of the health costs incurred by municipal hospitals in treating alcoholics.

• All registered alcohol consumers shall provide proof, each calendar year, of a liquor liability insurance policy in the face amount of not less than one million dollars.

“This is just a start”, Looney vowed, “and we will be adding more restrictions as we develop this bill with our fellow Democrats. These are the exact restrictions we are imposing on gun owners after the tragedy of Sandy Hook – yes, a few of them have complained, but not all, and certainly not the majority of our citizens, who recognize these as just common sense regulations that will eliminate the carnage so prevalent in modern society. And while I recognize that these restrictions may seem onerous and even expensive to some state residents, I remind them that drinking is a privilege, not a right: if we can save a family from destruction, a woman from being beaten, if we can save the life of just one child, is any price too high?”

Looney invited all those with questions or comments about his bill to call his district office at 203-468-8829.


Filed under Uncategorized