Y'know, I've watched this video twice now still trying to get a feel for what this gentleman is actually advocating for. I still can't see where he "owns" anyone simply because no one, to my knowledge, has proposed anywhere that a person's right to self defense in the home is under any kind of siege whatsoever. While I don't personally agree that further gun regulations are even necessary following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I do believe something needs to be done regarding the pervasiveness of gun violence and gun safety. I don't pretend to have any answers regarding what that should look like, but I do know that impassioned rhetoric on both sides of this very contentious issue does virtually nothing except exacerbate more impassioned and inflamed rhetoric. Doing nothing in light of the daily tragedies directly attributable to gun violence in this nation, as the Dad in this video might seem to be implying is the way to go, is a travesty being committed by our society in general. JMO and my two cents worth.
In addition, it seems there might be some discrepancy as to "whom" this individual "owned". According to the following site, this individual testified before the Gun Violence Prevention Working Group of the Connecticut General Assembly, not Congress as the OP indicated was the case.
My sense is that he is angry at the exploitation by our government and lawmakers of a true American tragedy.
As for who he testified in front of......who cares. The message was of value to me.
As the OP....I indicated nothing. The youtube video header makes that assertion.
Splitting hairs.
I agree that we need to address "violence" period in this country but legislation of gun control measures is not the path to a solution.
Mental health, family values, job creation and a brighter future for ALL would be a good start for me.
frogger wrote: My sense is that he is angry at the exploitation by our government and lawmakers of a true American tragedy.
As for who he testified in front of......who cares. The message was of value to me.
As the OP....I indicated nothing. The youtube video header makes that assertion.
Splitting hairs.
I agree that we need to address "violence" period in this country but legislation of gun control measures is not the path to a solution.
Mental health, family values, job creation and a brighter future for ALL would be a good start for me.
For the most part, I would agree with you regarding a multi-faceted approach to the issue of gun violence. The reason I brought up anything at all regarding the video is because I've been seeing an increase in the vitriol on both sides of this issue. Personally, I'd much rather see fact based, data based, statistic based information being presented to bolster one's positions on this issue instead of the continued rhetoric that something won't work just because someone says it won't work. Opinions are just that - opinions. All too often, in my opinion ( ), the attitude "I'm right and you're stupid" takes precedence over reasoned, rational dialogue. This Father's take on the 2nd Amendment and the CT State Constitution appear to me to be more from an "absolutist" perspective than a realistic perspective simply because neither of those two are absolute from what I've been able to research on this issue. Just one example:
http://smartgunlaws.org/the-second-amendment-battleground-victories-in-the-courts/
And, as to where his testimony actually takes place, I believe it is relevant. To imply this took place at a congressional hearing is misleading.
A couple of questions.....
Are the deaths in war including those on the other side of the battlefield or just Americans killed?
Are civilian casualties included?
1/4 of those deaths were homicides.
The point i make is that we can find statistics to meet our needs.
I AM NOT saying we do not have a violence problem in this country.
I disagree that the GUN is the reason for it.
The numbers are a bit skewed to meet the need in the article.
These are just a few of the potential causes we could cite as problems in our society.
Add to that violent video games and movies and a tendency towards a violent culture.....well....what do we expect.
Many prefer to fix the symptom as opposed to tackling the real problem.
frogger wrote: I AM NOT saying we do not have a violence problem in this country.
I disagree that the GUN is the reason for it.
I so often see the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people and we don't blame the car for auto accident deaths......but without the gun, violence is not quite so deadly and without the automobile, well we wouldn't have such deadly accidents.....a couple horses colliding? man probably walks away. A couple bikes colliding? man probably walks away. The instrument does play a role, and regulating the type of gun, or car can make a difference, regulating the user of those deadly instruments can make a difference. But no, we cannot ever stop all gun related deaths, just as we have not stopped all auto accident related deaths.....but regulations can mitigate them. All the regulations on driving an automobile have helped lower the number of accidents and the number of deaths associated with them.
In 2010, the fatality rate per 100
million vehicle miles of travel (VMT) fell to an historic low of 1.11. The 2001
rate was 1.51 per 100 million VMT. The National Occupant Protection Use
Survey (NOPUS) reported an 85-percent seat belt use rate nationwide for 2010.
Data show a decrease in the number of fatalities in alcohol- impaired-driving
crashes—from 13,290 in 2001 to 10,228 in 2010. Fatalities in alcohol-impaireddriving crashes when compared to the previous year (2009) decreased by 4.9
percent from 10,759 to 10,228.
The number of (motor vehicle)deaths – and deaths relative to the total population – have declined over the last two decades. From 1979 to 2005, the number of deaths per year decreased 14.97% while the number of deaths per capita decreased by 35.46%. In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, killing 32,885 and injuring 2,239,000. [1] The 32,367 traffic fatalities in 2011 were the lowest in 62 years (1949).
I believe that a certain amount of regulation is in order on gun ownership.
I believe we have a great many laws on the books that are not enforced properly. Why?
I am ALL for increasing the penalties for anyone who commits a violent crime with a gun.
Like I said before......it appears to be easier to fix the symptom than the real problems in this country.
), the attitude "I'm right and you're stupid" takes precedence over reasoned, rational dialogue. This Father's take on the 2nd Amendment and the CT State Constitution appear to me to be more from an "absolutist" perspective than a realistic perspective simply because neither of those two are absolute from what I've been able to research on this issue. Just one example:
