“How many others in the state own guns? We don’t know the answer to that. Four or five years from now, we’ll have a clearer sense of how many guns are out there. What we don’t have is a record of those bought privately from your next-door neighbor or buddy, or brought in from out of state.” – Connecticut Under Secretary for Criminal Justice Policy and Planning, Mike Lawlor in In region’s rural towns, guns outnumber people [at theday.com]

Recommended For You

30 Responses to Quote of the Day: All In Good Time Edition

    • Federal law, while prohibiting federal databases, does not preclude state databases. Many states have handgun registration (California, Mass., NY, NJ, DC come immediately to mind), and California has a long gun registration scheme that goes into prospective effect January 1, 2014. Plus California has a bill pending that would reclassify currently legal “black rifles” as “assault weapons” and require them to be registered retroactively. So Connecticut can do the same and it is perfectly legal, even if perfectly stupid.

  1. Registration? That’s not possible. I wonder how many people they expect to actually register their guns. Surely the criminals will be first…

  2. Pick any town in America where guns outnumber people and crime will be lower than any urban paradise. Leave these people the hell alone.

  3. “Lawlor said the law, with provisions pertaining to mental status and criminal history, aims to keep guns out of the hands of people “that probably should not have had guns.”
    “It’s not intended to interfere with your right to purchase a gun,” Lawlor said.

    That’s a scarey concept. Now they’ve incorporated “The Law of Probability” into the legal system. What’s next, a “Department of Things People Probably Shouldn’t Be Allowed To Do” or the IRS deciding you probably need to pay more taxes? Oops, already happened.

  4. But WHY do you want to know, Mike? Do you want to know how many knives I’ve got? Or DVDs? Or cats? Or Craftsman 1/2 socket wrenches? My personal life is none of your business.

    • Oh dear. If I have to register my socket wrenches, I am going to be buried in paperwork for the next several years 😉

    • Because their grip on power is of primary importance. Anything that could be used to oust them from power is a threat and must be controlled.

    • I’ve always needed to know how many people own electric toothbrushes. We really need to get to the bottom of that.

      • Hey those toothbrushes can be deadly. Debristle that sucker, carve it down and bam, you got yerself a automatic electric shank. Nothing more deadly.

  5. This idea that because you can measure or quantify something, you can control it mentality needs to go. Knowing who owns guns and how many will not make a damn difference in crime. Just look to Canada for their failed registry. Oh, but this is America, we can’t fail like the other countries? Right?

    • Well, the Canadian registry did in fact facilitate confiscation of some firearms, so it did work as far as the grabbers are concerned.

  6. What the hell would he do with the numbers if he had them? It would not help an actual crime fighter.

  7. Reminds me of a “Dilbert” comic where a worker reports that he’s finished his project, so now what? To which the pointy haired boss then dismissively responds; instructing him to “Make a spreadsheet and track something.”

    “Track what?”, he asks.

    “I think you’ll find it doesn’t matter”, the boss responds.

  8. According to USA carry, nearly 1 in 5 Connecticut residents owned guns before Sandy Hook and that number is a little higher now. All of us will be affected by the new law. Lawlor would do well to remember that we tend to vote out the people who screwed us over.

  9. Fewer are ‘brought-in from out-of-state then they probably think’ since they are probably not talking about ‘brought-in’ when people move there. For those that are not aware of it, or have not read it, a good read on the subject is Kleck’s “The Myth of Big-Time Gun Trafficking and the Overinterpretation of Gun Tracing Data” available for free here: http://www.uclalawreview.org/?p=100

  10. Hypothetical:
    I call a buddy over because he has 1911 he wants to sell. I buy it, we fill out a standard tranfer form(in a state that doesn’t require NCIS/FFL supervision). We both change our mind so I sell it back to him. We fill out another transfer document. Without a time stamp, both of show that we got rid of the gun on the same day.
    When manditory registration comes, or “lost gun” laws pass, who has the gun?

  11. But Mike, you’re not supposed to know how many. Just do your job, lock up and actually keep criminals long term and it won’t be an issue. Also it isn’t your job to create more criminals with your bogus policy’s. Oh and Mike just to be clear, it’s victims that deserve justice, not criminals.

  12. There is an FBI Study called Violent Encounters and it examined 30+ attacks on Law Enforcement Officers. It found that 97% of the guns used were obtained illegally and that criminals had an easy time obtaining them.

    These laws won’t impact the criminals because they aren’t meant too. CT wants to make criminals out of law abiding citizens.

  13. “How many others in the state own guns?”

    And if you knew that particular statistic what would you do with the information? Are you planning on using that particular number in a marketing campaign somewhere? …Come to Connecticut, we have 150,837 guns in our state!…

  14. There is only one reason to create a tracking database (federal, state, zip code, etc):

    To move towards confiscation.

    Recipe:
    Start with a database. Add a ban of certain weapons- thanks to the list confiscation is now feasible. Revise and increase the scope of the ban to enable a larger number of confiscations. An added bonus is the ability to designate law-abiding citizens as criminals with each ‘progressive’ step.

  15. How many time has the President and the Attorney General of the US lied on the record during this Administration? And worse yet, they havent been the least bit embarassed when they are caught.

    As a Police Officer, any lying or even shading of the truth would have gotten me fired. Why not them?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *