Let the Gun Control Debate Begin

Governor Malloy’s State of the State address, the appointment of the Sandy Hook commission and the opening of the new legislative session marked the official start to the debate that will inevitably result in new gun control legislation for Connecticut.


This past week, I sat on the floor of the House for Governor Dannel Malloy’s State of the State address at the invitation of State Rep. Gail Lavielle (R-143).  The room was energized with the knowing smiles of campaign veterans and giddy, apple-cheeked newbies ready to put long-promised campaign ideals into practice.  

Gov. Malloy spent several choked-up minutes speaking about Newtown, the newly appointed Sandy Hook commission and the need for gun control. And although his speech was pretty darned light on the details of how to move the Connecticut economy forward (he actually spent more time waving the flags of accomplishment), he did get the soundbite of the day when he observed that the answer to the gun violence problem is not more guns. 

Last week, and how to best respond to it. Most reader comments—and I read every single one, even if I don’t always respond—were insightful and rational.

Because Patch In and Patch Back are meant to encourage local debate about the issues of the day, rather than reply to each thread I decided to incorporate readers’ comments here:  

  1. Many asked, "Could someone please explain how mental health evaluations will stop crime?" The Sandy Hook assassin used guns taken from his mother, who acquired her weapons legally and presumably would have passed a mental health background check.
  2. Some said, "Maybe the answer to gun control IS more guns." No one talks about the number of people whose lives were saved after an armed citizen took out an unsuspecting attacker. Perhaps trained-and-packing staff could prevent future tragedies.
  3. Others observed, "Are you crazy? No one should have a gun except for members of law enforcement or the military, period." Do you really think your handgun or shotgun is going to keep you safe in the unlikely event the U.S. government storms your house?
  4. And finally: "A killer with conviction will still find a way to kill, gun or no gun." Remember Oklahoma City?

Many readers used statistics to solidify their points, the details of which I did not verify and will not report here. But lest this debate become a retread of I’ll see your safe and legal gun ownership statistic with an equally persuasive gun violence statistic and raise you with a heartbreaking anecdote, let us stop and reflect on some additional considerations.

First, as of this writing, there has been no credible information on the medicine the Newtown shooter may have been taking. Nevertheless, anecdotal evidence suggests that he was, obviously, mentally ill. What, if any, treatments were made available to him? Did he engage in or refuse treatment, and why?

Second, law-abiding, gun-owning citizens are exposed to the same violent movies, video games and news every day that gun-owning criminals are. Nevertheless, most gun owners are able to resist these violent influences and make it through their lives without committing horrific crimes (or having their weapons stolen for the purpose of committing horrific crimes). Does this fact render the cultural influence argument moot?

Third, shouldn't the purpose of this legislation be to reduce violence in all its forms, not just reduce the number or type of guns sold in Connecticut? And if that is the case, don't we need to address the serious mental health treatment issue in this country?

The ugly truth is that any current or future Connecticut gun control legislation, no matter how strict, is impotent if a crazed person decides to commit a mass killing. Securing a weapon, is, apparently, a simple matter for a determined criminal.

The nature of these tragedies is such that civilized society is compelled to act. And yet, this compulsion to “do something” often results in feels-good, does-nothing, time-squandering legislation.   

The gun control debate, up until now, has always resulted in a stalemate because both sides are well armed (no pun intended) with equally persuasive statistics and advocates. Nevertheless, the Second Amendment is clear: the people have the right to keep and bear arms and the Supreme Court of the United States has twice ruled in recent few years to uphold #2.

As a result, our best approach is de-stigmatizing psychological illness to encourage family members to seek help for those who need it most and by making that help readily available. Perhaps we should make a thorough mental health evaluation part and parcel of the well visit (let’s put Obamacare to work!). We should also implement an “if you see something, say something” approach to potential public safety threats.

Just to be clear, I’m no mental health expert. But the approaches we’ve used thus far clearly aren’t working. Anyone who would attack a school, or a movie theater, or a military base, or a mall, or an office is clearly in need of treatment.

Finally, let us remember that more legislation is only better legislation if it provides real value and lasting positive change.

RONALD M GOLDWYN January 17, 2013 at 05:15 PM
Lisa, again you are correct. There are many licensed drivers who are blind, especially senior citizens at night. Licensed gun owners who have become senile or worse after being okay back when they were licensed. But the two main problems are guns used in domestic violence and the criminal possession of guns from private sales and stolen weapons. While over 30 people per day are killed by a gun most Americans are law abiding, but fear government extreme regulation.
CuriousOrange January 17, 2013 at 08:12 PM
Guns are also the leading cause of suicide. A person who passes a background check one day may become depressed years later. Take away his/her gun(s). The Chicago Tribune noted, "America had more than 11,000 firearms-related homicides in 2011, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But here's what's brushed aside: In 2011, America had more than 19,000 suicides committed by firearms, according to the CDC."* http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-04/news/ct-perspec-0104-firearms-20130104_1_gun-owners-firearm-suicide-rate-strict-gun-laws
Concerned Parent January 17, 2013 at 09:24 PM
When it comes to gun control, the mental health issue is being brought into the mix simply to muddy the waters of the real issue. That is ability to access to these type of assault weapons and the ability to access buildings with them. I've heard arguments that the proposed gun control measures are a "knee jerk reaction". I completely disagree with that statement. A knee jerk reaction would be to ban guns altogether. Opponents of bans on certain assault weapons are bringing the 2nd Amendment into the discussion because they simply want these assault style rifles. Why? Because they have been glamourized and become a designer weapon. We could make the same 2nd Amendment argument about automatic weapons, after all they were banned in 1934. As a state, we need to take control of this problem and pass legislation within CT to addressed this issue. To pass the responsibility to the Federal Gov't is a copout. Even at the local level, ordinances can be put in place and I eagerly wait for a politician who is brave enough to propose one.
CuriousOrange January 17, 2013 at 09:32 PM
I wonder about the truth of the assertion, in the article: "Securing a weapon, is, apparently, a simple matter for a determined criminal." I would say it is a simple matter if there are guns in your home, in your friends' homes, at your place of business or recreation. Where guns are uncommon or under lock and key, access is not so simple.
RONALD M GOLDWYN January 17, 2013 at 10:27 PM
If 19,,000 residents each year commit suicide by gun, then the mental exam that each must pass has a defect. Based on the number of 30 gun related deaths each day it equals 11,000 deaths per year, so the suicides must be in addition to the 11,000. Thus I'm moving closer to our President's position that a stronger mental test is in order to buy and possess guns or ammunition. I'm willing to listen to the argument of why a citizen in defending their castle must have the capacity to have a gun that can discharge 30-100 rounds in 30 seconds. Especially when it is the law to use deadly force only as a LAST resort. Two of my guns are semi-automatics with a 10 round capacity. That means I can discharge 20 shots in 30 seconds before reloading. Even our police don't feel that it is necessary to defend themselves with such firepower normally. I learned last night at the police academy that most patrol officers do carry locked in the trunk of their car a shotgun and an AR15 if they are qualified to do so.. I would like to see all gun owners certified every five years in the weapons they own, just as we have various types of motor vehicle licenses.


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
See more »