As national attention turned to the gun debate in the wake of last month’s brutal shooting deaths of 20 Newtown 5- and 6-year-olds and their teachers, some Wilton residents are hoping to increase awareness about violence issues much closer to home. Jennifer McNamara, the chairperson of Wilton’s Domestic Violence Task Force, has organized two meetings to take place today at the Wilton Library to focus on gun violence and the threat it poses to our schools.
The task force opted to plan two meetings—one at 10 a.m. and one at 7 p.m.—in order to encourage as many people to attend as possible.
McNamara said she was motivated not only by what happened at Newtown’s Sandy Hook Elementary School, but also by two recent incidents of gun violence involving the Wilton community—the Grumman Avenue shooting, an alleged domestic altercation during which a rifle discharged, injuring both the husband and wife; and the shooting death of Cider Mill teacher Svetlana Bell, allegedly by her husband, Robert, after what was also reported to be a domestic dispute.
“I felt so disheartened—everything happened right after we did our big push for Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October. You do everything to get the information out there but it doesn’t seem to reach the people that need it,” McNamara said.
McNamara has invited representatives of Connecticut Against Gun Violence (CAGV) to speak at the meetings: Lucy Davies and Harrison DeStefano, two Wilton residents who are organizing a local chapter of CAGV, will attend the morning meeting; Ron Pinciaro, CAGV’s executive director of the organization (and a Wilton resident) will represent the organization at the forum in the evening.
Dr. David Bernstein, a forensic psychologist, will also be speaking at Thursday’s morning presentation.
“Dr. Bernstein will be discussing threat assessment with a focus primarily on school violence, and red flag behaviors—that’s really a whole other component too, that we really have to change the way we deal with mental health,” McNamara said, adding that local officials will attend the meetings, including First Selectman Bill Brennan, police chief Michael Lombardo and State Representative Gail Lavielle.
McNamara went to a well-attended gun violence meeting in Westport the Monday following the Newtown shootings and felt that people now would be more attuned to learning more about the issues. “I was overwhelmed by the amount of people who showed up at that meeting—more than 200 people. I think we can get a lot of people in Wilton who would be very interested in now learning about gun violence, and it would be a good opportunity to build more support for the Task Force,” she said.
Some support that McNamara is hoping to build is with the Wilton school district. She said that school superintendent Dr. Gary Richards’s office has told her he won’t be able to attend either meeting Thursday but that the information would be passed on to other district administrators.
“I’m hopeful that the principals will come. Particularly for the kids. It’s been a really hard month having these conversations over and over, having to explain about Ms. Bell, and then having to explain about Sandy Hook. My hope that school administrators attend the meeting has to do with Dr. Bernstein’s presentation on threat assessment. I believe it will be very informative, especially in light of what just happened in Newtown,” she said.
Her goal is to focus attention on the impact violence of all kinds—domestic, gun, against women, in particular—has on the entire community.
“I do hope it raises a level of awareness, and that people really do say that it’s happening and it’s happening right in front of us—our neighbors are affected, the children our kids go to school with are affected. It’s not some problem ‘out there’ in some other city. Domestic violence is everywhere. It doesn’t matter where you live, what color you are, what religion you are or how much money you have. It touches everybody. Who is helping those poor kids of the Grumman Avenue family? Who is helping them and their friends of what they know and what these children have lived through?"
Ron, myself, all the mothers and fathers, politicians and principals, gun owners and "anti-gun people" at both meetings were there for one reason - we all are worried about the safety of our kids. I am sorry I had to leave before the heated exchanges began last night and I am also sorry that many of the gun owners weren't able to be at the first meeting. Dr. Bernstein's talk about the psychology of these school shooters was informative and gave us all a lot to think about. If you missed the first meeting you also missed our discussion about what we are trying to accomplish with our group here in Wilton - which is dialogue and change. We want a constructive conversation free of name calling and we are hoping for a civil debate on the right course of action. I believe in the right to own a gun and to protect yourself, your family and your property. but... I think that all gun purchases should be subject to a background check. I don't see how that impacts any law abiding citizen except a few days wait for a gun. I think that an offensive, military style weapon equipped with a 30 or 50 round magazine should not be in the hands of anyone but police and the military, just as I believe I shouldn't be able to own a tank or a RPG.
Here is a piece from the Wall Street Journal about shootings and the homicide rate, it came out just before Newtown - so no one was tap dancing on any graves. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html Shootings are way up in this country. Let's start thanking Doctors for the lower homicide rate and not the NRA and assault rifles. Let's get these guns out of the hands of criminals, lets keep these guns away from our kids and let's move forward in the country and make it a safer place for everyone.
Get guns out of the hands of criminals - check. Get guns out of the hands of this who are mentally disqualified from having guns -check Stop rogue dealers and punish straw buyers - check Improve our school, social and other systems to better identify and process any young person show tell-tale signs of a potential problem - check I am with you on those, here are some I would offer for your review: Acknowledge that "gun free zones" are useless and ignored by the felonious or homicidal person - Revise all "gun free zone" laws to allow concealed carry by those with valid pistol carry permits - Limit magazine capacities to 30-rounds or less and banning mags with capacities in excess of 30 rounds - Institute a national gun show FFL transfer requirement similar to that in the state of CT - Make no changes to CT assault weapon ban descriptions or rules but require future purchasers to have to have a valid state-issued pistol permit and limit all future transfers to same license requirement - Release our law enforcement officers from explicit or implicit "stop and frisk" prohibitions and allow them to search any party who might be suspected of fitting a profile of a potential illegal gun possessor - Require all out of state/online ammo sellers to acquire from the potential buyer proof of legal age for buying ammo (DL or official state ID) What do you think?
Yes, more guns in the hands of criminals, mentally unstable or improperly stored are going to lead to problems. Yes, more guns flowing into our inner cities illegally is going to be a problem. If we want to look at these statistics, let's breakout events involving qualified, permitted and law-abiding gun owners and those in possession of guns illegally. Ron was disingenuous with his use of statistics last night. On the one hand, he makes the case that a gun in the home is "47times more likely to be used against a member of that household than against an intruder". Let's just say I stipulate to the NE Journal of Medicine's conclusion, what is the nature of one guns? How many were legally owned and properly stored and how many we're not? How many were suicides? How many of this event set will be prevented by banning AWs and/or limiting magazines? Why no discussion of such details? Did the NEJM collect that? Should Ron not point out these questions? Switching directions, there is plenty of evidence that over the past dozen or so years, the number of firearms in the USA has doubled while the number of violent crimes or homicides has been almost cut in half. I wont saw cause and effect but that certainly runs counter to more guns=gun violence.
Yes, Lanza and Holmes used ARs but they are the exception based on 30 years of data on mass killings. According to analysis compiled by Mother Jones ( far from a pro gun organ), handguns were twice as likely to be used as rifles in mass murders going back to the early 1980s. Combine that with the fact that less than 4% of gun-related eats are due to rifles ( and a smaller % AWs), there is no compelling reason to believe that banning ARs will have a real effect on these crimes. It might provide a salutary feeling of having "done something" but how will that prevent death by pistol? Should we provide ourselves and our kids a hollow sense of well being? Again, the shooter in Oikos University was not hampered by the school being a "gun free zone" nor by an AW ban nor by a mag limit. His killing of 8 would be possible in CT even if Ron gets his way on ARs and mags. I am for SENSIBLE change that will have REAL impact. However, I remain very leery of the endgame for folks like Ron. Once they get their mag ban and the next mass shooting take place with limited mags, what's next? All semi-auto pistols? Then speed loaders for revolvers? Then revolvers? Where does it stop? Will i be limited to selfdefense with a derringer?
The organizers of yeaterday's two sessions billed it as an education session. I am sorry the expert from the morning was not available for the evening because that info would have been of interest to me. What leaves me annoyed is that this "education" session was really a one-sided presentation of a single and extreme view in this debate. Half of the attendees came pre-disposed to favor Ron's message and it was self-reinforcing. Echo chamber like in its effect but is that educational? Were all the issues and positions presented in an effective manner? If the intent was to "educate" in a single perspective, then that is more indoctrination than education. Sure, my questions did broaden the discussion and did challenge Ron on some of his points bit many in the crowd saw me as a nuisance because I was interrupting the narrative that they wanted to hear.
Each picks a moderator who will alternate answering questions of the other participant. Someone from the sponsor will act as referee and timekeeper. The debate is videotaped with each side getting a full and complete copy. We each get a five minute opening statement before questioning begins. Three segments of questions: How did we get here? Where are we now? How do we improve our world? Each moderator gets to ask the person who did not invite them three questions per subject section. Answers are limited to three minutes with one minute rebuttals. A period of Q&A follows. Such a forum would allow fair and balanced discussion with both sides getting a chance to explain their perspective. What do you think?
I am happy to talk further - the back and forth on this comment blog is useless. If you are free next week I would enjoy sitting down with you and discussing your ideas in person. Here is a link that has a decent summary of Dr. Bernstein's talk along with my e-mail. If you are willing to sit down and chat you can pull my e-mail off the article and contact me. http://www.thehour.com/news/wilton/wilton-takes-stand-against-violence/article_5d53ae25-7a55-5e0f-ba19-a89ce9d162f2.html
I am not sure if this is useless if just a few readers who are open to all views here a perspective that provides a counter-point to the restrictive gun control view of many. How can I get in touch with you?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3713749
My e-mail should be on the bottom of that link I posted above.
Some links to critical reviews: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/read5.html http://home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/rkba/kellerman.htm http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html
I look forward to reviewing your linked articles.
Tell you what, let us move to the most present firearm studies from the medical community. Part 1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3513846/ Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3:133. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.102951. Epub 2012 Oct 29. Part 2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3513850/ Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3:135. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.103542. Epub 2012 Nov 16. This newest study tears apart the opinionated and slanted NEJM study done 30 years ago.
For instance, the American Academy of Pediatrics declared in a 2009 report, "The evidence is now clear and convincing: Media violence is one of the causal factors of real-life violence and aggression." The report focused on all types of media violence, the Associated Press reports. But for video games in particular, the pediatricians cited studies that found high exposure to violent ones increased physical aggression in the short term, and warned that they allow people to rehearse violent acts. On the other hand, the pediatricians’ group said friendly video games could promote good behavior. So where is the editorial outrage against violent video games, movies etc? Maybe hacking away someone else's legal guns is easier than ensuring your own home (parenting skills) creates the appropriate social empathy in your children...
Our 8 to 15 year olds are seeing things that their young minds are too undeveloped to process. Murder, mayhem and gore generated in pixels conditions their minds that that is a normal occurrence. Worse, that they can attain social status in their real and virtual peer groups by chalking up huge points and body counts reinforces a warped sense of reality. Then, if their kid develops ADHD or some other "abnormal" behavior, parents immediately accept their doctor's or school's advice and put the boy on meds. But parents and society at large do not want to look at their roles here. They are complicit in creating children susceptible to "going nuts". Many parents ignore the warning signs that a problem is developing. Schools are ineffective at dealing with bullying. As puberty hits, the hormones reek even great havoc on their fragile psyches. Boys exhibit "rage", yet parents will ignore it because it "can't be their kid". So the focus goes from the root causes to the implements of slaughter. They think that removing the implement, removes the possibility. Yet, they ignore evidence that even the current gun law proposals are false security which is no solution.
Ron Pinciario CAGV: call him at 203-895-0651 or get him on the facebooks at https://www.facebook.com/ron.pinciaro
I was surprised to read that UK crime and gun stats need careful consideration. Not included if crime is unsolved as to perpetrator whether someone was killed or not. And their violent crime is 4.5 times higher than US per capita.
The gun control industry's current AW and mag limit proposals, and yes, it is an industry given Ron's admission that CAGV has a $16mm annual budget (where does that money come from), are inherently RACIST. Yes, they are racist. Consider that the majority of AW owners are white males living in the suburbs or rural areas. There are very few AWs in our inner cities and few AWs owned illegal by street criminals. Consider that the majority of mass murderers, especially the school killers, are attacking either their peers or people very much like them. Consider that there has not been a single school or similar massacre has been executed by a black male and only a couple of hispanic males. There have been no massacres at inner city schools, movie theaters or malls. All the attacks take place in the suburbs and the anti-gun movement is now being driven by suburbanites to protect suburbanites. Innocent adults and children in inner cities are shot due to local gang/drug violence, being in the wrong place at the wrong time or bullets that randomly pierce their home's walls. (continued)
While I continue to argue that confiscating all AWs will do little to prevent future massacres, removing AWs from the public will do NOTHING to protect black and brown kids in inner cities. They are not shot by AWs so fewer AWs will have ZERO impact upon them. Further, placing limits on magazine capacity for law-abiding citizens will have NO impact on protecting inner city adults and children. As Ron pointed out, 80%+ of handgun violence (and even higher % in the inner cities) is by the hands of criminals, mentally ill, illegal handguns or others disqualified from legal handgun possession. Thus, by their nature, these folks don't obey the law which will include any mag limit. Thus, the mag limit law will do NOTHING to make the inner cities safer. The ONLY aspect of Ron's proposals that MIGHT positively impact inner city violence is the effort to limit the proliferation of legal guns into illegal hands via "rogue gun dealers". However, in order for the gun control crowd to do that, they need a law change for the ATF to share data that is not currently available. But, the NRA's opposition to this is that once the 1% of gun dealers who are rogue (Ron's number) are put out of business, the gun control lobby will find ways of attacking law-abiding dealers. But I am willing to stipulate that this effort might have an impact on new guns entering the streets. (continued)
Owning a gun legally does not translate into killing unlawfully or killing at all. Having the ability to defend oneself against crime is not a crime.
I have suggested that Ron is a genetic gun taker and the CAGV's mission is eventually disarming all citizens. Start with AWs, move to semi-auto handguns, then revolvers, then semi-auto shotguns, etc etc. I have also suggested above that the gun takers are now using the emotions of the moment to jam through their long-desired laws, irrespective of whether they will make people safer. If you doubt me, then why aren't Ron and others call for increased "stop and frisk" activity by police allowing law enforcement to search people who are likely to be carrying an illegal weapon? Fastest way to get guns off the inner city streets is to take them off the streets. Why aren't Ron et al calling for even stiffer sentences for crimes involving a weapon? Why aren't they calling for increased police budgets to put more cops on the streets to interdict illegal gun carriers? I am sure no one cares whether white males are being singled out here. But does not anyone see that these already flawed proposals are can only benefit suburbanites and not those in the inner city? Do you not notice that all the voices being raised today are white? Where are the black community leaders calling for AW confiscation and mag limits? So here we are, pulling our Nation & State asunder, expending copious political capital and, should laws be passed, have negligible/no impact on our inner cities. Does this not strike anyone as racist? (continued)
Don't get me wrong, if some nut job walked into a school in Bridgeport and executed another heinous massacre, I am pretty certain Ron would be rushing down there to find the News12 camera and demand confiscation of assault weapons and mag capacity limits, etc. I am sorry but the more I think about this the more frustrated I get. Ron accused me of "not carrying about the kids" in Wilton which, given I have four school-aged children could not be further from the truth. I am all about EFFECTIVE efforts to make our kids safer, not bans and limits that are easy to bypass, particularly by the crazy and criminal. Now the point to allow some of you to dismiss my views. Our society, no matter how much we might try, can not prevent all future school massacres. We can do things to reduce the risk by identifying potential shooters ahead of time, securing weapons in safes and with trigger locks, keeping weapons out of the hands of the disqualified and removing illegal weapons from circulation. But we have to recognize that "Gun Free Zones" provide no more protection than a piece of paper when dealing with the maniac. We also have to understand that once a shooter is armed and in motion, the only way to prevent or reduce death is if that shooter is interdicted when he enters the school. You can mock the NRA's suggestion but once a shooter is in the door, the only preventative measure that can stop him is good-guy shooter on location. Israel figured this out.
Seriously, I too commend the group who sponsored this event for their general efforts. I feel their frustration and sorry when we have tragedies as in Newtown. My youngest son could have been in that classroom. My wife, active in school activities, could have been an adult victim. So when Ron accused me of "not caring about the children" he hit a very raw nerve with me. As for Thursday's evening presentation, the one-sided and misinformation nature of it, in another context, would be indoctrination. Worse, participants could have left thinking that AW confiscation and mag-limits are going to prevent future massacres. They won't.