Connecticut's strict gun law linked to large homicide drop

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You must not be able to read the whole comment from all that frothing at the mouth. It's been fun, again Augustus, but I know how much of a zealot you are so this will only escalate. Good day.

originally posted by: MOMof3
You must not be able to read the whole...

You 'comment' was not related to the discussion. You claimed the James-Younger game only killed rich people and that it was okay and when challenged on this threw out the straw man of 'I was not there so they are just stories'. What the hell does that have to do with the Founding Fathers?

Your argument is based on falsehoods and your reply is irrelevant and incoherent.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And the thread is not about me and my faults. And I still stand my ground either way. 1.Gun control is necessary with the archaic mental health system we have in this country. 2. Hold the family responsible.

originally posted by: MOMof3
And the thread is not about me and my faults.

You were the one who made the detestable interjection that it okay to murder people who are of differing social status.

1.Gun control is necessary with the archaic mental health system we have in this country.

We already have gun control.

2. Hold the family responsible.

If the family has nothing to do with the crime why would they be responsible? You have no desire for justice, you instead turn your bitterness of society to vengeance. Very sad.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't see how anyone gets "justice" in these mass murders. The families will never be the same. The only one who gets to choose his/her justice is the killer. Either by his own hand or the courts. But he/she gets a choice. The families know when a family member has become disengaged and violent from society. Maybe if enough people suffer from these maniacs, we will address our national problem. You don't have sympathy for the victims looking at the barrel of .45.

a reply to: MOMof3

And the thread is not about me and my faults.

Nope, it's not.

And I still stand my ground either way.

Good for you.

1.Gun control is necessary with the archaic mental health system we have in this country.

So, instead of fixing the problem, you want to restrict my rights? What's fair about that?

2. Hold the family responsible.

Really? How many generations are you going to go back? My brother is going to spend the rest of his life in prison for his crimes. He's an evil, grown man, who made his own choices, so I should be held responsible? Really? My ninety plus year old father should be held responsible? Or my nieces?

So, are kids responsible for the actions of the father?

originally posted by: MOMof3
I don't see how anyone gets "justice" in these mass murders. The families will never be the same. The only one who gets to choose his/her justice is the killer. Either by his own hand or the courts. But he/she gets a choice. The families know when a family member has become disengaged and violent from society.

And what is your point? Prosecuting the perpetrator's family members gives the victims what exactly?

You don't have sympathy for the victims looking at the barrel of .45.

Says the person who feels it is okay to murder other human beings. Find one sentence in my 13,000+ posts that even remotely resembles your vile ideation.

a reply to: CB328

Well OP you are wrong wrong wrong.

There is a better more accurate explanation for the crime drop in the 1990s.

Watch the documentary "Freakonomics" or read the book. Economists examining the crime drop in the 1990s that was BTW nationwide and not just in Connecticut found that crime dropped as a result of "roe v wade."

Roe v wade made abortion a constitutional right in 1973. Then in the 1990s, when these unwanted unborn children who were aborted would have been 17 18 19 years old and started committing crimes, they weren't around. These economists proved the link between the right to an abortion and the crime rate drop because in states where abortion was legal before Roe v Wade, the crime rate also drop sooner. The true link is between unwanted children and violent crime. Its a sad truth that our permissive society enables people to fornicate and create unwanted children. Its these unwanted, neglected children often from economically depressed, single parent homes or the foster care system who are psychologically damaged and grow up to be violent offenders. The real truth is not pretty and its not one that progressives from either party want to admit too. GOP progressives want private prisons and to be seen as "tough " on crime and Democrat progressives want a permissive society and abortions.

Anyway your OP is wrong. Its been proven over and over again that your assertion that guns = more crime is wrong. Violent crime increases where gun controls are strictest and drop where people are able to carry guns to defend them selves. Its called deterrence and its effective. I would also note that in South Carolina, where the recent Church mass shooting occurred, has a law preventing concealed carry in churches. Once again people die because of the unintended consequences of progressives passing laws for a world that doesn't exist in reality. Truth is that South Carolina needs to butt out and permit concealed carry in churches and leave it up to the people in the congregations to decide if it should be allowed in their church. Banning guns = death.

This is why NO ONE HAS BEEN ARRESTED under the 2013 CT gun law. It is because that person will obtain standing. Swarms of lawyers are salivating on the sidelines to take this one all the way to SCOTUS where they will easily get the law thrown out and make a national name for themselves.

See why here (pay close attention to the very last part of the last sentence):

www.law.cornell.edu...

Public law current;established in the Fire Arm Owners Protection act of 1986 (FAOP)

18 U.S. Code § 926 - Rules and regulations

Snip; No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.