Area Legislators, Gun Owners Debate Bill Calling for More Firearm Regulations
Representative David Linsky’s bill to further regulate the licensing, sale and possession of firearms and increase the sales tax on firearms and ammunition was the hot topic at Monday’s gun violence discussion in Foxborough.
Videos
Editor’s note: This is Part I of an ongoing series that examines the issue of gun violence in Massachusetts and Representative Linsky’s proposed bill.
Area legislators agreed during a discussion on gun violence in Foxborough Monday that firearm-related deaths in Massachusetts – and the United States – is a significant problem that requires more than one solution to effectively address.
The two-hour discussion, which was sponsored by the Foxborough Democratic Town Committee, centered on State Representative David Linsky’s (D-Natick) proposed bill - H 3253 - to further regulate the licensing, sale and possession of firearms and increase the tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition in an act to reduce gun violence and to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth.
“I filed this bill to – in one way or another – try to cut down on firearm violence,” Linsky said to the near-capacity crowd inside the McGinty Room of the Foxborough Public Safety Building. … “We as a society need to recognize we have a significant gun violence problem in this country. It is the worst gun violence of any country in the world.”
Provisions in Linsky’s bill calls for:
- Having one standard of the issuance of all gun licenses, giving local police chiefs the ability to evaluate all aspects of an application for a gun license.
- Requires proof of liability insurance for possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.
- Requires that all large capacity weapons and grandfathered assault weapons must be stored at gun clubs or target ranges.
- Requires live shooting as part of the curriculum for a basic firearms safety course; this is not a current requirement.
- Requires all applicants for gun licenses and FID cards to sign a waiver of mental health records for review to be destroyed after decision.
- Imposes 25 percent sales tax on ammunition, firearms, shotguns, and rifles; dedicates funds towards firearms licensing, police training, mental health services, and victim’s services.
- Brings Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
- Limits gun buyers to one firearm purchase per month.
Many gun owners in the audience Monday called into question several of Linsky’s provisions.
“We have criminals committing these crimes and we are being blamed for it,” one gun owner said during the event’s Q&A session. “We have done everything you folks have asked for. We have a white sheet of paper that says we are good people. Yet, every time it goes to taxes you want to weigh more taxes on us because we enjoy firearms and because we keep our firearms for protection.
“I have been involved with firearms since I was 12. I’m 73 years old. I had a son who stole a bag of marijuana from somebody else and was shot in the head dead. The bottom line is it doesn’t make a difference how that death occurs. Blame a particular type of firearm for the ills of society is not going to cut it. The tail is being pinned on the wrong donkey here.”
Another gun owner – with military and law enforcement experience – said bills like Linsky’s proposal are “torturing” the law-abiding citizens because of the horrific actions of a select few.
“We can’t tax the law-abiding citizenry even if it is to fund for the mental health [provisions in the bill],” the man said. “That is not the way to go. We are already taxed to death.”
Another man in the crowd added: “The more we add to the gun laws the worse it’s going to get.”
Linsky and state representatives Jay Barrows (R-Mansfield) and Paul Heroux (D-Attleboro) heard about the bill’s shortcomings for the majority of the 54-minute Q&A session from a room full of concerned citizens.
Chief among those concerns were provisions requiring “all large capacity weapons and grandfathered assault weapons must be stored at gun clubs or target ranges and 25 percent sales tax increase on ammunition, firearms, shotguns, and rifles.”
Barrows said he plans to represent the majority voice from Foxborough, Norton and Mansfield at Beacon Hill and that voice Monday spoke passionately in opposition of Linsky’s proposal.
“People are concerned with losing their right to bear arms,” Barrows said.
Linsky told the crowd even he realizes his bill isn’t perfect and that it is meant to be “a starting point” in reducing gun violence in Massachusetts.
“I’m trying to make some headway,” Linsky said. “Just want to try and let some people know [about the issue]. Do I hate guns? No.”
Barrows said while there are provisions in Linsky’s bill he can support, the state representative hopes to prevent a “knee-jerk reaction” to the recent tragedy in Newtown, Conn.
“I think too often we get caught up in the moment of the day and we immediately huddle up and come up with something we think is a solution,” Barrows said. “We have got to understand what the problem is before we can come up with the solution and that’s one of the challenges. … What I’d like to see as an outcome is that we provide a safer society but we can’t prevent everything. … Let’s determine what the problem is and come up with a solution.”
Heroux added while it is important to avoid a “knee-jerk reaction” to high-profile events like Newtown, Conn., those tragedies can also call attention to laws with loopholes.
Heroux added his decisions are often made in a “systematic, evidence-based way” and that is how he plans to approach Linsky’s bill.
“There is no easy solution to this,” Heroux said of gun violence. “We wouldn’t be talking about this if there were.”
The three legislators agreed that no single solution will suffice in an effort to reduce gun violence in the state.
“There’s lots of different types of gun violence,” Heroux said. “There’s violence from suicides, school shootings, gang shootings and impulse homicides. All of these are different. What I’m going to try and do is look for ways to reduce gun violence based on the type of violence you are talking about.
“The strategy you use to reduce violence of a gun for suicide is very different than for a school shooting, very different than an impulse kill or gang shooting. Strategies should be used very differently.”
Linsky agreed.
“Each one of the sections is trying to cut down on the different types of violence,” said Linsky. “One section goes to accidental shootings, another section goes to mass shootings, and the other section goes to domestic violence shootings and so on. … One thing I’ve learned in this discussion is there isn’t one single solution.”
Asked what provisions in Linsky’s bill all three legislators could agree on, they collectively pointed to requiring live shooting as part of the curriculum for a basic firearms safety course and bringing Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
“How the hell aren’t we part of the NICS?” Barrows asked.
Linsky’s reasoning for proposing the firearms regulation bill in January is based on the following statistics he shared Monday:
- “32,000 a year die as a result of firearm violence,” Linsky said. “About half of them are suicides. Another percentage of them are accidental shootings. About 11,000 are firearm homicides.”
- “When you take 32,000 that’s 83 a day,” Linsky said. “Of those 83, eight or nine of them are children. … That’s a problem. Like it or not, that’s a problem. And it is something that we, as a society, have to try to reduce. If you don’t think that’s a problem then we don’t have any business talking.”
While those statistics are alarming, some gun owners felt they were being blamed for the actions of others.
Jay Lewis, a 40-year-old New Bedford kindergarten teacher, said he felt Monday’s discussion was a waste of his time because the purpose of the discussion “is wrong.”
“This is a waste of my time,” Lewis said. “The fact that Newtown, Conn. happened, the fact that this discussion is happening is wrong. We are attacking the law-abiding citizens.”
Foxborough Police Chief Edward O’Leary, who was in attendance prior to the Q&A session, said he found the discussion to be productive and enlightening.
“It was an opportunity to hear different viewpoints from different speakers,” O’Leary said. “I’ve learned something [from concerned gun owners and the state representatives in attendance] and I think it is important to have open ideas so we can move forward and try and reduce the potential for violence.”
TELL US: What do you think of Linsky’s proposed bill that would further regulate firearm sales, use and possession? Share your thoughts and/or concerns in the comments section below!
Claire Naughton
10:20 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
It's as if there were no gun control advocates in the audience. Shame on the Patch for such one sided coverage.
Jeremie Smith
10:26 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Claire,
I certainly did not hear many gun control advocates in the audience speak up during the discussion Monday. You even mentioned to me "We had several members who felt too intimidated to even speak" at the event. I am confident I reported accurately what occurred at the meeting ... a healthy debate between gun owners and legislators that was well moderated and facilitated an interesting discussion.
Joe Farnsworth
3:36 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
One sided coverage? Shame on the Patch?
Yes, we heard from four gun control advocates and I noticed how well scripted the moderator (and you) tried to make the Q+A.
After two pro gun people got to speak, the moderator chose you next, calling you madam as if he didn’t know your name.
After eight more pro guns speak, you point out to the moderator (yes I have a video of you subtly gesturing twice) his next choice, a man named Charles who knew of an accidental shooting death.
Isn’t it funny how you already knew he was anti gun?
Rep. Barrows got to speak, and then the moderator says “we’re getting down to time…..and….. we’ve only heard from one woman here.“
One more pro gun gets to speak and the moderator chooses your friend Marcy, out of the dozen women at the meeting, he chooses the woman sitting beside you.
The last person chosen to speak is Bill, who sits at your other side and commends Rep. Linsky for trying got do something.
Perhaps the view of Jeremie Smith (the writer of the story) was not as easily manipulated by professional speakers as you wished.
I prefer to think people (including you) act with the best intentions.
However, if you wish to find “shame” here, I would put you on the list of canadates.
Claire Naughton
1:38 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Jeremie, You took a quote from a private email I sent to you out of context. Yes some people didn't speak because they felt intimidated. My email to you stated why people felt intimidated.They felt bullied.I mentioned that you did not report the feeling in the room, that the moderator had to continually caution the gun advocates about acting civilly. They yelled loudly and disrupted the debate, trying to dominate the discussion. At least 6 of us who were pro gun control spoke up, but weren't quoted. Hope to see some of those quotes in a future article.
Jeremie Smith
1:53 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Claire,
Agree to disagree. From my perspective - and from listening to the meeting for a second time through (I recorded it for accuracy) - the "feeling in the room" was very much gun owners calling into question several of Linsky's provisions, which I stated in the article. It is unfortunate that people felt "bullied" because I personally found the discussion to be a healthy debate, especially considering how passionate people will be on this issue. I felt as though Dennis did a good job moderating the discussion as he allowed people to voice personal opinions and pose challenging questions to legislators. He was always on point to right the ship whenever an interruption or outburst occurred to keep the discussion going in a civil manner. I did not feel that was important to note in the article because it is to be expected in discussions related to civil rights. That being said, I welcome anyone who is pro gun control - or against it - that did not wish to speak at Monday's discussion to post their comments to this article here as a way to facilitate the discussion further. Or, if you would like, I encourage anyone pro - or against - gun control to submit a Letter to the Editor via e-mail to Jeremie.Smith@patch.com. Thank you.
Joe Farnsworth
3:59 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Most first time attendees to public meetings don’t speak because they feel intimidated. Agreed.
Many of the pro guns did not speak up, including me.
Attacks on the 2cnd amendment often bring strong emotion to what needs to be a logical debate.
“They yelled loudly and disrupted the debate” is splitting hairs, it did happen but was not solely how the pro guns conducted themselves.
“Trying to dominate the discussion” is what I found Rep. Linsky and the Naughtons doing.
Six anti guns spoke up?
I attended, watched and rewatched my recording. Yourself, Paul, Marcy and Bill are only four people.
Dennis Naughton
2:20 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
As chairperson of the Foxborough Democratic Town Committee, I want to let readers know that, thanks to Lauren BItar, the entire gun violence forum that the FDTC hosted was taped by Foxboro Cable Access. It will soon be available on local TV. This will provide an opportunity for viewers to make up their own minds about the disruptive and intimidating behavior of some gun advocates at the forum. It will also provide comments from the other side of the issue---advocates of gun control.
Ken B.
6:21 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Yes let's all see it, and not see what gets edited out.
Chris
3:36 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Does Linsky’s bill exempt him from many of his own proposals like carrying large capacity, etc? He is a state employee after all if I understand the wording correctly.
Chris
3:36 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Let me re-phrase that. Such as owning large capacity.
Joe Farnsworth
3:36 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
As an attendee of the meeting, I want to let readers know that I also taped the meeting.
I had the opportunity to witness the intimidating behavior of Rep. Linsky and yourself.
Each person has their own view of events and no two will ever be identical.
I suggest the Naughton attack on Smith stops now.
Let him say that the general consensus of the attendees was that Rep. Linsky’s bill punishes the innocent.
Claire Naughton
4:25 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Mr Farnsworth,
Obviousy all of the members of the of the Foxboro Democratic Town Committee, who hosted this meeting, knew who I was and knew that I am Dennis Naughton's wife. It was a joke when he pretended not to know me, most people in the room laughed, including the speakers.. Later when I pointed to the side of the room where you were filming(you are the man in the tri-corned hat) I was pointing to a whole group of people who had their hands up--they were not in the line for vision of the moderator and he had not looked that way. Many people politely put thieir hands down as others were speaking, so when the moderator looked around the room, while others were speaking, he did not see them. The Foxboro Dems had no reason to orchestrate the meeting beforhand, it was our meeting and we had no idea who would show up. Your assumptions are insulting appear to me to be based on your own prejudices.
Joe Farnsworth
7:03 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
As one not privy to the insider’s joke, you must understand how it looks to an outsider.
I will admit to being biased by my opinions, just as you and the rest of the world is by their’s.
Please do not be insulted, it is not my intention.
After all, in the 3:36 comment, I included you as acting with the best intentions.
“Many people politely put their hands down as others were speaking“, agreed, also a part of what happened at the meeting, but not the picture you painted in your 1:38 post.
It is impossible to convey in few words a unified understanding to varying peoples with varying vocabularies, creating a need for longer conversations.
Yes, I am that (gentle)man who along with my shirt and tie wore a tri corne (or “patriot’s hat” as the Concord Museum called it when I bought it) hat.
After reading Representative Linsky’s bill, I hoped the hat would convey an interest in throwing the bill overboard
Bill Darcey
5:06 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Those who are "passionate" about guns literally seem to have a hair trigger and are beyond clueless as to the Second Amendment since they do not seem to know the first part of it "A well regulated Militia ,being necessary to the security of a free state".They believe in no regulation , never mind being "well regulated" . Until 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court basically held no individual right to a firearm ,and even since it has been a 5-4 ruling which will probably swing back with the next appointee . Gun people don't want to hear this , even though Republicans have dominated the court (there hasn't been a Democratic Chief Justice since 1953) .
"Necessary to a free state" ; these gun people seem to believe it's to overthrow
the free state , when they don't like the government freely elected . They pledge allegiance to a country "indivisible" then talk about dividing it through secession because the majority feels differently . I thanked Rep. Linsky for at least trying to
do something to lessen the carnage . I couldn't agree more that there are too many laws , we shouldn't need laws against drinking and driving or texting and driving ; it should be common sense ; but as Mark Twain said "common sense isn't that common" . It should be common sense we don't need big magazines or so-called "semi-automatic" weapons ; it was common sense when the NRA backed the 1939 ban on machine guns . Now it's radical no compromise time .
Joe Farnsworth
7:56 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
1)
Those who are passionate about guns seem to focus on the second part of the amendment.
“…..the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
“This represented the first time since the 1939 case United States v. Miller that the Supreme Court had directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment.”
Not that the right only became a reality after 2008.
“5-4 ruling”, yes sadly for me a narrow win.
But take heart, President Obama has nominated and installed two S.C. Justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor who with all their education and legal training feel the 2cnd applies only to the state’s right to arms.
I am a registered democrat who considers himself a liberal and as a “gun people” I do worry about another Justice tipping the scales.
Joe Farnsworth
7:57 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
2)
Can we both agree that a person’s rights are limited when they infringe upon the rights of others?
I propose that the 1939 ban on full auto http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm
and the recording of all dealer sales (form 4473) About.com: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/ch44.html
(Gun Control Act of 1968) are the limits of the 2cnd. and any further restrictions are infringements.
I appreciate that you are an empathetic person and wish to improve society.
I cannot agree with you that H 3253 would lessen any gun related losses, so I’m not thanking Representative Lansky for it.
Perhaps our difference is that I understand that some of the “we” you mentioned do have a lawful need for large capacity and semi-automatic guns.
Ken B.
6:21 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
25% Sales Tax on ammo ?
Not when you buy it in NH Linsky.
Dennis Naughton
7:56 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
A good place to start in promoting civility and reasonable dialogue is to refer to others by their proper title, in this case, as conferred by the voters. Thus, I respectfully sugest to Mr. Ken B. that in the future he refer to the representative from the Fifth Middlesex District as "Representative Linsky."
Ken B.
7:39 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
Typical, Dennis.
You can't dispute the statement, as it is fact.
All you are left with is another of your usual stupid liberal "do as I say, not as I do" retorts.
Remember this gem of yours ?
"Gaill Huff is on record as prodding Scottie to get a job......"
I do believe that the "Scottie" you are referring to is Senator Brown ?
Whether in office or out, the politician retains the title of their most recent elected office.
You posted that on the thread where you posted this childish response several times:
"HaHaHaHa, Keep suckin' on those sour grapes !"
I guess you were just attempting to "promote civility and reasonable dialogue" with those statements, right hypocrite ?
BTW, Gail, as in Gail Huff is spelled with one L, not two.
grover cleveland
6:21 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Wow sounds like the Naughton's didn't get the reaction they were expecting. Maybe we should get a short rope and a tall tree and take care of this patch problem. Just another stumbling block for the Democratic committee's attempt to take over the opinion of the free thinking members of this town. What's next . Get real. The gun debate is a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy. People seem to come out of the wood work to push their agenda when something horrific strikes. You folks can bluster all you want and the only thing you will change is the hatred you spawn. Leave it to the politicians to use this as another revenue stream God knows Massachusetts needs the money. Dennis and Claire you should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to manipulate a result from a town debate you were in control of. Patch did a fine job of reporting the meeting in an objective way sorry it didn't push your agenda.
Laurel Jean
6:34 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Bill, how dare you speak for me as a gun ower. I have been a responsible gun owner for 30 years. I have never committed a crime with a gun and never concidered it like most gun owners. I was educated on the proper use of a firearm long before I ever picked one up and I understand it is a dangerous tool when in the wrong hands. So is an automobile, a knife, a bottle of booze, and a nuclear bomb, all tools and all dangerous in the wrong hands. It is ludacrist to think the gun debate can be settled by people like you belittling people who own guns because they don't think like you.
Laurel Jean
6:34 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
As a reader who was not in attendance during the meeting I got a great, clear overview of what the meeting covered. Jeremie thanks for such a detailed article covering the issue and for keeping it objective. If people want to feel the emotion of the meetin they need to be there. Great job as usual.
Dennis Naughton
7:03 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Breaking from Newsmax.com
Colorado’s Hickenlooper OKs New Gun Laws
Colorado has joined New York as the first states to enact stricter gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.
Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper signed three bills into law which limit ammunition magazines to 15 rounds, require universal background checks for gun sales and transfers, and make buyers pay for those checks.
He inked the bills Wednesday morning, the day after his chief of prisons was gunned down on his own doorstep, despite warnings the magazine limits would force Magpul, the largest producer of ammunition magazines in the state, to leave and cut hundreds of jobs.
Read More Here
Dennis Naughton
7:03 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Breaking from Newsmax.com
Colorado’s Hickenlooper OKs New Gun Laws
Colorado has joined New York as the first states to enact stricter gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.
Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper signed three bills into law which limit ammunition magazines to 15 rounds, require universal background checks for gun sales and transfers, and make buyers pay for those checks.
He inked the bills Wednesday morning, the day after his chief of prisons was gunned down on his own doorstep, despite warnings the magazine limits would force Magpul, the largest producer of ammunition magazines in the state, to leave and cut hundreds of jobs.
Read More Here
Chris
9:34 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Breaking news Feinstein fails in Senate and gun banned dropped. Even Democrat lefties aren't lining up to get behind this nonsense.
Dave
7:56 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Mr. Darcey,
What our founding fathers intended with the statement "...a well regulated militia..." was that all colonists be armed or have access to their arms and basic load (ammunition) and that the people, who at that time were the militia, were well regulated to be called apon when needed for defense.
The 2nd Amendment was in fact put together so that the people could defend themselves from a tyranical government; very much like todays government.
Your argument that we don't like the current freely elected government as the reason for why we are rising to support the 2nd Amendment is wildly incorrect. A more accurate statement would be that we refuse to accept the shredding of our Constitution and Bill of Rights which our executive office continues to propagate and this didn't start with the current administration. Further, we refuse to allow ourselves to be disarmed and have our only defense against "...all enemies, foreign and domestic..." What you need to do is educate yourself on the subject of the Volkstadt Act and what it did to the German populace. The Patriot Act in conjunction with the NDAA combined together equal a repeat of history, only now it's here.
Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said "Those who will give up their freedom for a little security deserve neither."
Bill Darcey
9:42 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
what our founding fathers intended for "arms" were single shot muskets by strict construction .
Jeanne Dyer
7:56 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
I am so sorry I was too sick to attend this meeting but I can respond to the some of the drivel that followed on a well-written article.
As a teacher with excellent yearly evaluations and no criminal record, I will still be fingerprinted this year and an extensive CORI will be performed. If I were to use the logic of the gun owners out there, I'd be declaring that my prior innocence should exempt me from regulation. That of course would make MA the only state that doesn't require fingerprints and would leave parents with no database for protecting their children.
Additionally I have prior personal experience with a licensed gun owner's extremely frightening misuse of a gun while drunk. "Booze" is a damn site more dangerous in the company of a drunken gun owner. And don't tell me they don't get drunk.
Automobiles can be dangerous, yes, AND we pay to insure them, have to have tests to get a license, and keep tabs on all drivers yearly and make them pay excise taxes and prove that they meet all manner of safety regulations.
You gun collectors are part of no militia, the goals many of your activists appear to be more revolutionary than protective of the state, and you certainly are not "well" regulated: you are barely regulated at all.
Gun violence is out of control. The odds that a gun will kill an innocent are much greater than the odds that I will need a militia to protect my town from some invading force of Tories. Get real.
Dave
9:34 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
I am no 'Gun Collector'. I am an American just like you. I have been fingerprinted and background checked just like you. I, just like you, have no criminal record either. I also have been an active military serviceman in the Army, 6 years, Honorable Discharge with Law Enforcment experience. I have been trained for quick response to horrific sceniros. In short, when others run away I and others like me run in to help. I am a Sheep Dog amongst the Sheeple. I have grown up in a family that respected weapons and am leaglly licensed to carry in MA. Why you may ask? Because there are bad people in the world.
CO, CT, AZ; All horrible events caused by people with mental illness. Had there been one person in those schools or public venues armed, the body count they wanted would have been shut down. Not one of us in that room that night were for "No Regulation". We were simply stating "No more regulation!". Enforce the exsisting laws that we have?
People like you scare me. Are you waiting for another Beslan, Russia event to occur? Beslan is enough for me. Google it, if you don't cry you're not human. Instead of removing 'guns' our teachers should be armed. I'm glad my children aren't in your classroom.
If it makes it easier for you to understand, how many children die in fires in schools now on an annual basis? None. Why? Because we have fire drills, sprinkler systems and smoke detectors. Apply the same logic to firearms and firearm emergency response.
Bill Darcey
10:54 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Dave , don't you know Columbine already in 1999 had a 15 year veteran Sheriff's deputy on guard at the school who fired at a perp 4 times from 60 yards and did nothing to stop them , he ran back into the school .
grover cleveland
9:05 am on Thursday, March 21, 2013
Ms. Dyer,
Your drunken gun owner is a person with a drinking problem who should get help for his problem. Maybe if people like you were to educate them on the fact that guns and alcohol don't mix he might try and get help. My point about Booze, automobiles, being dangerous was to point out that many Things are dangerous in the wrong hands. We hear about drunk driving accidents everyday and repeat offenders constantly. What is being done about that? Nothing because it is a character issue just like these twisted individuals that shoot up a school. This problem goes well beyond banning things. How do you help the person from a broken home or with a mental issue who feels the only path to glory is to kill and get their name all over the headlines?
You should not stereotype gun owners to fit your perverted view of us. Would it be fair of me to say all teachers are pushing their socialist views on our youth to effect change in the future? No, you would certainly take offense to that statement I hope. Well to call all gun owners revolutionaries is offensive to me. I grew up with guns and learned early on to respect them for what they are, a tool. A tool of any kind can be dangerous in the hands of a person who is not in their right mind.
And just for the record lets hope you never will need a militia. If our founding fathers felt that way the fourth of July would be just another day.
Dave
10:01 am on Thursday, March 21, 2013
Bill I am well aware of the sheriff's deputy (position and response) and have been in a position to review how he reacted/responded to the situation as it unfolded. In fact we studied the event looking for ways to prevent similar situations across the country.
The deputy fired more than 4 times at the subject; you're working numbers off a press release. Actual shots to engage were 7 and the Deputies initial weapon used was his side arm (pistol) which only had an effective range of 25 yards, dropping accuracy of 11% with each additional yard added to the distance to engage the target. The Deputy then failed to pursue his subject opting to wait for backup.
At this point, hind-sight is 20/20. The conclusion of our study was that had the Deputy been trained properly and able to respond and meet force with force instead of waiting for back-up the body count (minus the two subjects ) could have been halved.
My point here is training. We have 'Fire Drills', how about 'Bad Guy Drills'.
Claire Naughton
7:56 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
To Joe Farnsworth,
You are a gentleman, and thanks for listening.
Joe Farnsworth
9:34 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
To Ms Claire Naughton,
You are quite welcome, and thank you for listening to me and my opinions.
If we only talked to those who saw things from the same perspective as our own, we would never learn anything new.
If society is to advance changes, we must find “all inclusive justice” ways of doing it.
How do you feel about Representative Heroux’s thoughts on gun laws?
grover cleveland
7:56 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Are you posting this as a Democrate because your party is passing unpopular legislation or a citizen that is concerned about another tragedy? It seems as though you are gloating about this legislation being passed.
Dennis Naughton
9:34 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
@ the person who chooses to take refuge, for his/her own purposes, behind the pseudonym of Democrat Grover Cleveland : I personally support this kind of legislation under my real name. I do so because I believe it will save innocent lives. I am not gloating, only informing.
Dave
9:32 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Beslan Links:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dispatches-beslan/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis
Dennis Naughton
11:16 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Please share your point Dave.
Dave
9:05 am on Thursday, March 21, 2013
Dennis, the point I'm trying to make is that for all the police and military that were present in the city of Beslan, Russia they still didn't have the ability to respond quick enough to be able to stop the nightmare from happening. All the criminal element wants is to create a 'body count' and to use that to instill terror. The city of Beslan was picked because just prior to the attack the Russians confiscated all weapons from the civilian population and the rebels were getting beaten down. There was no strategic reason for the assault on the school.
Force is met with force, adapt and overcome. If people are defenseless you might as well stock body bags in schools and public venues the way defibrillators are distributed.
Dennis Naughton
10:58 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
I have to ask what this would have to do with the fact that half the gun deaths in the US are suicides because guns are near at hand and people do it on impulse. Gun violence will never be completely solved, but we can do better with some rational, well thought our measures. Wouldn't you agree?
Dennis Naughton
10:58 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
@Ken B: Guess you didn't know that wife Gail Huff's term of affection for former Senator Scott Brown is "Scottie." Apparently you don't get context. BTW, there is a difference between a typo and an outright English error. FYI: Your statement, "Whether in office or out, the politician retains the title of THEIR most recent elected office" is incorrect. It should be written: Whether in office or out, the politician retains the title of HIS most recent elected office. HIS/HER is also acceptable. Hope that helps clear things up Mr. Ken B..
Ken B.
8:07 am on Friday, March 22, 2013
Epic fail, Dennis.
Had you put Scottie in quotation marks, "Scottie" you would probably have a chance of an argument.
"Gaill" was only a typo ? Just more hypocrisy from the resident spell-checker, who insultingly corrects spelling of posts he disagrees with.
Just like every other time you've been taken to the cleaners on these boards Dennis, you make another lame repetitive English professor's threadbare attempt to cover it up.
Glad to know it gets under your skin, hypocrite.
Dennis Naughton
5:13 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
@Ken B: How many Gaills do you know? I don't know any. However, I do know that the rules of English do not allow ending a sentence with a preposition. "Just more hypocrisy from the resident spell-checker, who insultingly corrects spelling of posts he disagrees with" would correctly be phrased: "Just more hypocrisy from the resident spell-checker, who insultingly corrects spelling of posts WITH WHICH HE DISAGREES. What do you say, anonymous, let's get back to the original topic for the sake of everyone else on this conversation.
Ken B.
7:34 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
Nah. You had your three swings and misses. I suggest (there are two "g"s in "suggest" BTW, not "sugest") that next time you try swinging at the plate, and not from the on-deck circle.