Sandy Hook Backlash Grows

“The police chief in a Connecticut city [Waterbury] halted permits for gun shows, saying he’s concerned any firearms purchased there might one day be used in a mass shooting.” usatoday.com‘s report is hardly an isolated example of the anti-gun backlash in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School spree killing. “Texas transportation officials, in the wake of last month’s school shooting in Connecticut, are suspending the use of freeway message signs in Houston to provide directions to firearms-related events,” wfaa.com reports. Hoffman’s Gun Center’s Facebook page reveals that the New Britain Connecticut gun dealer “will require a Ct. State Pistol permit to purchase ‘Assault Style’ center fire rifles.” A petition to end AR sales at Walmart’s garnered some over 100K signatures. Meanwhile, liberal pundits continue to call for repeal of the “inconvenient” Second Amendment (e.g. Vanity Fair).

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

43 Responses to Sandy Hook Backlash Grows

  1. avatarDavid says:

    “Texas transportation officials”

    That is a freedom of speech issue as well as a 2A issue. In Texas no less.

  2. avatarSCS says:

    “inconvenient” Second Amendment.

    WTF??? I say while we are at it, scrap the whole damn document. Lord, the Liberals are F@CKING dense as hell.

    • avatarLinebackerU says:

      I think you’re wrong. I think we should expressly encourage gun control advocates to use the Constitutional amendment process to implement their desired changes. It’s fully-Constitutional, and within the intent of the Founders, to modify the document.

      There’s zero chance that a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress would support a change to the 2nd Amendment. It’s also extremely unlikely that 2/3 of the state legislatures would support more restrictions.

      By explicitly framing the argument in Constitutional terms, and then having control advocates fail to garner enough support for a change, we could come closer to ending the continual battle against the right to keep and bear.

  3. avatareaglescout87 says:

    Is there no petition for wal-mart to continue selling AR’s? Let those numbers add up as a counterpoint.

  4. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    But please keep the criminal safe zones, lets not go nuts here, Randy

  5. avatarMark says:

    Motor vehicles purchased in Waterbury might one day be involved in a crash. What are they doing about that?

    • avatarLowne says:

      I used a similar statement during a firearms discussion with family over the holidays and my brother-in-law came back with “Yes but cars aren’t designed for the express purpose of killing something.”.

      I hate to admit it here but, I didn’t have a come back for that.

      I respect my family and their views and it was a good discussion, not an argument, but I wish that I would have been intelligent enough to counter that statement.

      • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

        I would have replied, “and yet cars kill more people than guns, which likely means a) firearms owners are more responsible with their tools than car owners are, and b) you clearly are more concerned with the tools intended use then any loss of life its use may cause – you might want to examine that.”

        • avatarShire-man says:

          When they bring out the “designed for” card their position is reduced from one of saving lives to one of simply wanting to the the easiest bannable thing in the room thereby nullifying their “concern over lives.”

      • avatarAPBTFan says:

        With recreational or sporting uses existing for all firearms it doesn’t matter if the original design was for war.

        The Mauser ’98, Springfield ’03, Mosin Nagant, Enfield SMLE, M1 Garand and M1A were all designed expressly for combat yet are all shining examples of fine rifles for hunting, target shooting or sport.

        The “only designed to kill” argument is weak and hollow. We’ve had a handful of psychos use an AR to hurt people but compare that to well over a million AR’s out there being used for hunting, competition shooting or just plain fun. If they don’t see a “need” for AR’s then I don’t see a “need” for any vehicle not governed to 75mph. Speed kills.

      • avatarIng says:

        It’s a tough one to counter, because there’s no denying that guns exist because people needed to kill things from a convenient distance. (Of course that’s not all they do, but that’s a different argument.)

        One way to counter an argument like that is to get at the assumptions behind it. So guns are made for killing things? Okay, fine. It’s a fact we can all agree on. The assumption your family member made, that you didn’t, is that guns are always a menace and killing (or the mere ability to do it) is always a bad thing.

        But you can counter that assumption with another well-supported one: without the ability to inflict injury and death if necessary, self-defense is practically impossible.

        “Killing” isn’t a one-way street, and Dr. Evil isn’t the only guy in the neighborhood. Defensive gun uses are more common than murders and (almost) infinitely more common than spree killings. How many of those guns that didn’t get sold are going to *not* be there for some peaceful homeowner, business owner, or store clerk when some criminal arrives with armed robbery and murder on his mind?

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Lowne, here’s how I handle that one:

        2/3 of the people killed by guns are suicides, and it is well proven that suicide rates for a given country have nothing to do with the availability of firearms.

        Of the remaining 1/3, about 55% are killed by people with previous convictions for violent crime.

        Therefore, the best way to reduce gun deaths is to (a) improve mental health care and, specifically, suicide intervention, and (b) as we try to do with repeat DUI offenders, take the necessary measures to deny violent convicts the opportunity to commit further crimes with guns.

        What measures, you ask? There’s substantial proof that permitting concealed carry by law-abiding citizens has a significant deterrent effect which reduces violent crime.

      • avatarSilver says:

        Why deny that guns are designed to kill? Admit it proudly. Say yes, they’re designed to kill, and as such, enable me to protect my family from those that would do me harm, put food on the table, and keep tyrannical government in check.

        Defending one’s self is not evil. Those who make sweeping judgments about killing are simple-minded cretins who can’t think in far-reaching terms. It takes either a moron or an evil soul to believe that the thousands of righteous DGUs out there are evil.

        Also, watch what you say around anti-2A family and friends. A quick perusal of history shows that they’ll be the first to turn you in when their overlords demand it.

      • avatarJJ says:

        I agree with Silver 100%. Yes they are designed to kill. That’s why we have them isn’t it! If you believe that their is even the slightest possibility that you, or your children or your grandchildren may have to either 1) defend themselves against a tyranical government. 2) defend themselves against other members of society who would do them harm. or 3) need to kill game to survive. Then you are absolutely irresponsible if you don’t own a gun, and become trained in it’s use. Period! If you don’t think any of those things are possible, then you live seperated from reality and should, in fact, not own a firearm because you are delusional.

    • avatarWAJJr says:

      Stop making sense! WTF is this a Philip K. Dick novel aka “The Minority Report” ?

  6. avatarSanchanim says:

    Wally World won’t give up their biggest seller. To that end they might just stop in CT, you know so folks shut up.
    Everything else is just over reaction. If we stay on top and kill what ever legislation is being shoved down the pipe, all these PC things will go away as well and things will return to normal.

    • avatarPascal says:

      They don’t sell guns besides BB guns in CT anyway. Wally world will not stop.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        I can’t remember the last time I wandered into a Walmart that actually sold guns. But then again, I don’t generally shop in Walmart, and I live in CA, so there’s that.

  7. avatarHD76 says:

    The Texas story was for Houston. Local TxDOT officials suspended directions to gun shows after someone saw a sign back in Dec. and complained. State Level TxDOT officials put them back this week (after the story broke). Not necessarily in support of 2A, as the official statement was that they were there to help with traffic congestion, and lost drivers.

  8. avatarPaul W. says:

    What the hell?? A gun store doing this? Will someone frigging pull this knife out, I just can’t reach it…

    • avatarSammy says:

      I wouldn’t buy so mush as a barrel mop from those guys. I’m an independent business man and, God forgive me for saying it, but I hope they go out of business, FAST.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      Hoffmans sucks. They are part of the reason I didnt take interest in guns while growing up in CT. I posted a rant below in thoes regards

  9. avatarSilver says:

    People in this country don’t deserve it. It sickens me to have to live amongst them.

  10. avatarLance says:

    Time to fight for freedom pals.

  11. avatarLance says:

    I dont see Walmart ending AR sales over the Brady’s made up petition to ban guns. I expected to see CT being screwed up. But TX is little hard to think other than some Dallas liberal in the Texas Highway committing made another antigun statement by this no signs thing. But we must out last this dumb liberal satire and win.

  12. Wow. Hoffman’s business was booming over the last couple of years, packed every time I looked in…one had to wait at least 20 minutes to get a little surly help…selling pistols, ARs, Hi-cap mags, bulk ammo like friggin’ hotcakes.
    They’re a miserable gun shopping experience, although not as bad as the Cabela’s in Hartford.
    Check out their FB page link above to see just how pissed off customers can be.

    • avatarWhilemyTZgentlyweeps says:

      By way of background, Hoffman’s is one of the biggest gun dealers in the US. There is much to recommend about them. In fact, I bought a rifle there the other day and it was the same price it was a few months ago, despite being one of the most popular rim-fire semi-autos. There was a big palette of ammo that wasn’t priced to crazy. The service really was not that bad. That being said, I know lots of folks here in CT, usually gun guys, really, really do not like the place. However, as a price oriented shopper, the owner really gets some great deals from Ruger, Smith & Wesson, etc.

      On a local gun forum, it was hypothesized that Hoffman’s implemented its new policy because Sso many new gun buyers have coming in a panic, purchasing guns on layaway that they later could not pay for, or paying with checks that bounced, that it ended up taking inventory for his more regular customers. Who knows.

      That being said, as far as I can tell, he could really not give a damn about gun rights. How hard would it be to, say, hand out a brochure to every customer detailing what we are facing here in CT – Bye/Windfield bill, , etc., our governors new committee to basically take away guns (whatever it actually called) explaining reasons for opposition thereto and urging the customer to call their state rep and join one of 3 gun rights groups we have in CT. Maybe do a mailing to his customers, probably numbering in the hundreds of thousands? I keep checking the mail, but no. Nothing but silence.

      I do not believe he has any moral obligation to do any of the above. He sells guns at a good price with so-so service. He has been rewarded by the market. No opprobrium should attach to that. But, I am going to vote with my hard earned money from here on in an go elsewhere.

      And who knows, maybe, just maybe, when all that we fear most deeply has come to pass, and he’s selling muskets, Mr. Hoffman might contemplate what he should have been doing besides counting his damn money when gun owners in our state were under siege.

      • avatarAnonymous says:

        Here’s a recommendation for Greyson Guns in Orange. It’s smaller, but they still have good prices and they’re good people.

  13. avatarDisThunder says:

    In a weird way, this is starting to look really desperate on the part of the anti-2A crowd. It’s almost like a last-ditch flurry of punches, hoping one of them will connect somewhere. I think it’s due in large part to the realization that this “magic crisis” didn’t have the staying power they hoped for, and their pubic support has lost it’s zeal. Gun control is about to be pushed waaay back in line after people’s payroll taxes go up. In fact, I think the Fiscal Cliff BS did more to turn people off legislation than anything we’ve done on our end.
    That moron from Vanity Fair gets crucified in the comments section, too. I’m noticing a pattern…..

  14. avatarSammy says:

    To help the antis get to the root of the problem hows about a petition to ban violence and promote self defense???

  15. avatarIn Memphis says:

    My opinion, Hoffmans sucks. In a state that already has strict gun laws they have done nothing but deter my interest in shooting. Bad atitudes and no service unless you have the cash out. They seemed like they could give a damn less about anything other than money

  16. avatarpat says:

    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

  17. avatarshawmutt says:

    Damn, I wonder if it’s worth it to go through all the work to get my carry permit for CT.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.