Advocate for Peace and Nonviolence on Gun Control

Peace and nonviolence.

As an advocate for peace and nonviolence, and as someone who does not own a gun, I think it is wise to have strict laws regarding guns, as Connecticut does.

However, going forward is it also wise to remember the monumental failure of the "war on drugs" this country continues to endure. A complete "war on guns" would be just as damaging.

We have to stop the pendulum from swinging from extreme to extreme and make wise decisions based on facts. We also have to accept that sadly a mad man who is intent on inflicting pain will.

Violence such as the Newtown tragedy is so horrific it brings attention to the violence in our society. Children are the victims of violence every day, truly something must be done. The easy way out is to stop this painful conversation about why with assumptions, accusations and judgments.

But we cannot afford to take the easy way out. This is a time to listen to one another. Before we change laws and create new policies let us begin this healing process by treating each other with respect and kindness and prayer.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Guido December 29, 2012 at 12:41 AM
Americans are too stupid and lazy to have a democracy.
farm guy December 29, 2012 at 12:48 AM
the moral decay of this country is what is killing us.
Daniella Ruiz December 29, 2012 at 12:54 AM
agreed, that may be the truth, as Jack Nicholson said in one movie, 'we can't handle the truth', or 'we can't handle a real democracy', so many ignore it, and hope it will 'fix itself', or worse, just go away. those people may just be getting what they expect, a broken government replaced by a totalitarian & commercial plutarchy
farm guy December 29, 2012 at 01:01 AM
Mr. Taxpayer, There are just as many criminals stopped in their tracks by homeowners with guns. Our mainstream media will never report those instances. Until our politicians stop using armed bodyguards, I should be able to carry a gun for protection as well.
farm guy December 29, 2012 at 01:06 AM
want fries- ask anyone you know in the military police and they will tell you that these so called "goulags" are already built in case of a citizen uprising. I don't have issues, but I do have friends in some intersting places.
Ed Froem December 29, 2012 at 01:39 AM
Hawker, lots of generalities there, how about something specific?
Maggie December 29, 2012 at 01:59 AM
I really don't want to be rude but I'm the spouse of a veteran police officer and I can recall when he was hired he had to have a psychological exam and months of training with his gun. In my opinion he was properly trained and screened to carry a gun. I know a lot of gun owners believe they have this right to bear arms for whatever reason they want to but I do not believe our founding fathers intended for citizens to carry the weapons we're worried about today. I worry about my spouse everyday because people want to uphold the right to bear arms. If you all love these types of guns so much, maybe you should have gone into a career (police, law enforcement, millitary) that would permit you to carry these guns (be screened psychologically and trained properly). Now we have to worry about our kids being killed in schools so I worry for more people than just my spouse. Blame society, blame the moral decay of this or that, blame whoever or whatever you want.....but it's an excue to justify your right to carry a weapon you shouldn't be carrying. A weapon you're not even properly trained in. The tragedy we saw happen in Newtown was due in part to a crazy person and in part because of the weapon he got his hands on!
Kaptainsteve December 29, 2012 at 02:03 AM
Ed, You are wasting your time. All Hawk does, not matter how he tries to couch or camouflage it, is state his position on the issue. Almost everything he writes is never much more than a declaration of his stance. Hawk doesn't realize that it's ok to declare where you stand, but then you need to take it a step farther, back it up either with an anecdote or a rational explanation. But Hawk seldom if ever backs or explains anything up. Here's just one example. Hawk says about gun ownership (above) " One position is to have all that anyone wants. Another is to just ban guns. Neither are practical or useful. " Fine, but again, this just states your position that either unlimited gun ownership or complete banning of guns is neither "practical or useful." Why? He doesn't explain or offer anything to back this claim up? They are two completely different things (banning or unlimited ownership of guns) yet he combines them all into one and declares that both positions "are not practical or useful." It's confusing (he said it, I didn't) but it is only a claim and proof of nothing. Ed, I applaud your effort, but it's like trying to push rope...
Vernon Taxpayer December 29, 2012 at 03:53 AM
No Maggie you are not rude for explaining your opinion on the gun control. I am also in the Public Safety sector and belive we need some type of control on the types of weapons and ammo sold. My point of view is there is no need for a gun that can shoot 30 rounds or for the ammo to be so powerful that it goes thru a bullet proof vest. If you need 30 rounds to protect you and your family then most likely there will be an innocent bystnder also hit. If you can not take someone down without blowing them apart that is another problem. And yes there should be some type of psychological exam done. These are my opinions and I do have a right to them. As you all have a right to your opinion. I believe we are all looking for a way to stop the gun violence. But we all need to sit down and listen to all suggestions in order to help.
Kaptainsteve December 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Composition 101; Hawk says; "Example: the semi-auto AR-15 (M-16 analogue) with 30-round clips is more gun than anyone needs." Again Hawk, what you provide here is simply a statement of your position. A 30 round "clip" (it's called a magazine, not a clip) being "more gun than anyone needs" is simply your opinion. Whether it is right or wrong needs to be followed and substantiated by a logical progression of ideas or facts, you offer neither. Another example is that you also say ". Every illegal weapon started as a legal one. Availability counts. Notice the lack of absolutes." Yes, I did notice the lack of absolutes and the lack of facts or substantiation. The idea that "every illegal gun started as a legal one" is again, yet another opinion, substantiated with nothing and not further explained. Maybe you need some "absolutes" in your discussion. Absolutes like facts and some elaboration would be nice. Otherwise your comments are not offering up anything much more than "I like this" or I don't like that." Also, how about some shorter, more digestible paragraphs would be nice? No one takes the time to read those big globs of words 150 at a time.
Ed Froem December 29, 2012 at 01:06 PM
One way to deal with violence, and not just gun violence, would be to look at other areas of American life where we have made cultural changes and see what worked there. We have made serious dents in teen drinking and teen drinking and driving, and adult drinking and driving for that matter. We didn't make these changes by making it illegal. It's been illegal for over 60 years. So let's see what we did to make those changes and see what we can apply to our culture of violence. I will point out again that over all we have seen a yearly decrease in violent crime for the last 20 years, so maybe we're already seeing change.
Kaptainsteve December 30, 2012 at 06:31 PM
.Hawk says; "access to smaller capacity guns means less damage in incidents like Sandy Hook." and declares that "the logic is stated!" Well, it may be stated, and it is logic (to some degree) but it is nothing more than speculation and your speculation, and it does not automatically qualify as proof or logical. In fact, in court any lawyer worth his weight in salt would object on the grounds of "speculation" and the question would be struck right then and there. .And again, that's just one example. I quoted others (above) which substantiated my claim. I will not repeat them here, but you may pretend that they never existed. Hawk, the bottom line is this, who are you or anybody to limit the freedom and rights of others, who've committed no crimes, harmed no one, and threaten no one? An individual's right to own property and defend his inalienable rights to life, liberty and property are his, not yours to dismiss. If an individual cannot defend his life, liberty or property as he see fits, then those rights simply cease to exist in any real way.
Ed Froem December 30, 2012 at 07:09 PM
Well, Hawkeye can speculate about gun control all he wants. I prefer to look at the history of what has worked and what hasn't. The cities with the highest rates of violent crime eg Chicago, Washington DC have the strictest gun control laws in the nation. It would seem gun control does not equal control of violent crime or murder.
Joe December 31, 2012 at 12:15 AM
We will never solve this issue. For various reasons it will only get worse. Whatever you want to call it or whatever you want to blame as the reasons, it comes down to one thing. There are people that don't value human life. I'm sure I can sit in the XL Center with 15000 fully armed law abiding citizens and nothing bad would happen. I was talking to a friend of mine who is a trooper and asked him about this whole situation. Bottom line is they won't go take guns away from people who are not a threat regardless of what the politicians do. He thinks someone should be trained and armed in every school and that individual law abiding permitted and trained citizens should conceal carry wherever they go. Remember not everything that goes on in society gets to the media. Things are worse than the average person realizes. I trust his judgment more than grandstanding politicians,
Angela January 04, 2013 at 01:29 AM
Do we need to deport this one along with Feinstien AND Morgan?
Michael O. January 04, 2013 at 02:04 AM
It's funny how there are 11 armed guards at Sidwell Friends School, not including Secret Service who have augmented that staff since the Obama's daughters began attending. It's OK for the politocrats to have armed guards protecting their kids....but not ours.
Michael Levy January 04, 2013 at 07:20 PM
It is quite disturbing that one cannot differentiate between whether one is a child or an adult posting.
REVMAN January 09, 2013 at 07:04 PM
Micheal levy--Your right and some of their statement are so asinine and childish.I'll bet many aren't even old to vote if they are it kind of makes me nervous.
Vinny January 09, 2013 at 09:00 PM
Observor If a person is committed the police can take their weapons for safe keeping. The person can only get them back when they show a note from a doctor.
Ed Froem January 09, 2013 at 10:43 PM
Interesting question. Seeing as cities of 250,000 or better average twice the murder rate and twice the rate of violent crime as the rest of the country, and that most cities have far more restrictive gun control laws, I'd have to say that gun control isn't the answer.
Charles January 10, 2013 at 09:55 AM
Joe you are what is wrong with our society. Just another bully with a gun.
Joe January 10, 2013 at 01:03 PM
Charles, thats good, call me a bully. I checked and I dont see one factual contribution or any contribution from you other than that on this board. All you say is I'm a bully. Right out of the typical left wing handbook of call people bullies, and racists to intimidate them but not provide any factual basis for whatever your position is. How ill as well.
Wilson January 10, 2013 at 01:16 PM
Would someone please give me the name of one person whose loved-one was a victim of these senseless mass murders who is in favor of large magazine quick fire assault rifles? There are no atheists in this foxhole. And in light of not being able to find one may I say the psychopaths are the ones who support gun shows without national registries, quick loading bullets and are against the assault rifle ban. We are not going to arm every child and every movie goer so un-arming the lunatics and their supporters would be a start. And don't act foolish and hide behind constitutional amendments they were written at a more innocent age and being amendments can indeed be amended. Leviticus is not a Catholics best defense and 2nd Amendment is not yours. Please read this HuffPost link. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/the-second-amendment-dema_b_808384.html
Joe January 10, 2013 at 01:31 PM
Wilson when you can tell me how you will unarm the criminals and lunatics then we can hand in the guns of law abiding citizens. Please let's hear specifics on how you will do that. I'm serious. As for the Consitution and more innocent age, I think you need to re-learn your history. You focus on the 2nd amendment but how do you think the forefathers would have dealt with the millions of abortions we have had? I'm pro life by the way. How would they have dealt with people that live off the government dole which is other peoples taxes, for years and don't work? What you need to understand is that the 2nd amendment was not just about what the British had done on what was going to become American soil. It was about what Henry the 8th and other dictators did on English soil. Things like murder of innocent citizens in that innocent age you dream about, and one day waking up and finding out that you were no longer allowed to be Catholic, and you were now Protestant. That's what drove our 2nd amendment. Now how would I write that amendment today? Lets see, we had have Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Islamic Facism, just to name a few in our last century, so that would have to impact my thinking. We have immigrants that come here and want to be Americans so I am good with that, but we have some that come here that dont care about being American and that concerns me. Ruby Ridge and Waco, hmm I think I would make my right to bear arms alot more clear.
Howard January 10, 2013 at 01:44 PM
This borders on hate speech and the Huffington Post article is the result of hysteria and a liberal biased interpretation of the history of the Second Amendment. By the way, Is anyone beside me aware of the ongoing effort (HJ Res 15) to repeal the 22nd Amendment (presidential term limits)?
Joe January 10, 2013 at 01:58 PM
Howard I am aware of it. There are two issues that I think people need to be aware of on the left. 1) to try to get Obama in for a third term rings of dictatorship. He is one that should shut that talk down now. That would show leadership. 2) for the sake of this country Obama cannot change the 2nd amendment by Executive Order. That also rings of dictatorship. He can make his push for his recommendations to Congress, but trust me when I say this is the wrong guy at the wrong time, to be changing the 2nd amendment uniaterally. He already fought for an internet shut off switch and thank God he lost. Even liberals were bothered by that. I may not like the legislation and the courts may uphold it, but that's how this country works.
Ed Froem January 10, 2013 at 02:01 PM
Can anyone show me where a gun-related solution has worked in this country? Offer one up that is logical and fact based, not emotional and feel good and I'll certainly consider it. Lets apply a little scientific method to the process, so far most of the gun control laws don't hold up under that type of scrutiny.
Michael January 10, 2013 at 03:51 PM
Howard, if you imply that because you lost a loved one to mass murder that you are hysterical and not a worthy partner in this debate(read Howard's comment below) I am afraid you made Wilson's point. I also agree with his point that amendments have been changed to adapt to a democratic society. One of America's proudest moments was a change in amendments. The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 and it's result began the freedom march of racial equality. I am confident what is right about America will fix what is wrong about the Second Amendment. There is nothing hateful or hysterical about that.
Wilson January 10, 2013 at 04:01 PM
Really? Ruby Ridge and Waco? That's your best argument? Shameful. Does any one take "Joe" seriously. Why do all there Patch blogs turn out to be a episode of Honey Boo Boo? I'm outta here.
Joe January 10, 2013 at 04:14 PM
Hey Wilson. I also said "Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Islamic Facism, " i also referred to our forefathers having in their history the execution of innocent people. Why dont you just skip over that Mr. Castro?


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