# Gun control working well in Connecticut **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 13, 2015, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457 "2015-06-13T20:34:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/21 "2015-06-15T20:35:25Z")
I have no problem with believing that reducing access to guns reduces gun deaths. Seems like Economics 101 to me. If you reduce access to cars, you’ll save even more lives. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/22 "2015-06-15T21:08:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I have no problem with believing that reducing access to guns reduces gun deaths. Seems like Economics 101 to me. If you reduce access to cars, you’ll save even more lives. How much prosperity is created and lives are saved because we have access to cars? I’d suggest that hundreds of millions of people have their lives enriched unimaginably by cars. Whereas guns, generally sit there and don’t do much at all to enrich someone’s standard of living. At least, if you don’t use them to rob gas stations. So the comparison seems very very silly. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/23 "2015-06-15T21:50:53Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Does a 17 year old not have the right to self defense, in your view? Actually, this does raise an interesting point. If said 17 year old happens to be an able-bodied male citizen, by US law he is a [member of the militia of the United States.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311) Does not the second amendment apply to him? I think a good case could be made that the age of 17 should be the cutoff, not 18 or 21. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/24 "2015-06-15T23:19:15Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > This Connecticut rule does seem more reasonable. Except - why the over 21 requirement? Do 18-21 year olds not have the right to self defense? I hate this bullshit: trying to conflate self-defense with gun ownership and only gun ownership. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/25 "2015-06-15T23:30:56Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I hate this bullshit: trying to conflate self-defense with gun ownership and only gun ownership. :rolleyes: The core right of the 2nd amendment is self defense and the handgun is the quintessential self defense weapon. Surely there are other means to defend oneself but it seems reasonable shorthand to think the right to purchase a handgun goes hand in hand with the right to self defense. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/26 "2015-06-15T23:34:44Z")
Plus there actually is a slippery slope here. Nations with strict gun control usually restrict knives, pepper spray, and stunners as well. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/27 "2015-06-15T23:55:07Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t care what age the age of majority is set at. I do care that it be consistent. 18, fine. 21, fine. 42, fine. > > All law abiding adults enjoy certain rights as adults. Some of these are enumerated in the Constitution. There are only three constitutional privileges or rights limited by age. The right to take office as President, after election, is limited to age 35 and above. The right to take office as a Senator, after election, is limited to age 30 and above. And the right to take office as a member of the House of Representatives is limited to age 25 and above. But I don’t think that’s what you really mean by a right. For Bill-of-Rights type rights, there is no age limit. Here’s why: [Laws and regulations based on age were uncommon until the 19th century, and consequently so was possession of proof of age or even knowledge of a precise date of birth.](http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230) As far as limiting rights to the law-abiding, this is a much newer concept yet. The restriction on felons buying guns were introduced with the Gun Control Act of 1968. > [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > Actually, this does raise an interesting point. If said 17 year old happens to be an able-bodied male citizen, by US law he is a [member of the militia of the United States.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311) Does not the second amendment apply to him? I think a good case could be made that the age of 17 should be the cutoff, not 18 or 21. Only if the [twentieth century militia law](http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=unorganized+militia&f=treesort&fq=true&num=0&hl=true&edition=prelim&granuleId=USC-prelim-title10-section311) trumps the second amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/28 "2015-06-16T00:06:27Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The core right of the 2nd amendment is self defense and the handgun is the quintessential self defense weapon. Surely there are other means to defend oneself but it seems reasonable shorthand to think the right to purchase a handgun goes hand in hand with the right to self defense. It is unreasonable to assume that without a gun, no self-defense is possible. It is, therefore, unreasonalbe to suggest, imply or infer that without a gun, a person is defenseless. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/29 "2015-06-16T00:13:16Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > It is unreasonable to assume that without a gun, no self-defense is possible. It is, therefore, unreasonalbe to suggest, imply or infer that without a gun, a person is defenseless. You needn’t assume that no defense is possible without a handgun. The core right in the 2nd amendment is self defense and that is recognized with the most popular choice in the nation being a handgun. To deny the ability to purchase a handgun denies the ability to exercise the core 2nd amendment right. Simply saying defense is possible by other means is no cure for the constitutional infringement. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/30 "2015-06-16T00:18:07Z")
As Doug stanhope once said, put Miley Cyrus in a cage with Chuck Liddell(UFC fighter) and she’s gonna get choked out. Give her a Glock and things are a lot more even. Pepper spray, stunners, batons, etc., are very useful, but for the weak a gun is the best insurance. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/31 "2015-06-16T00:23:10Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Plus there actually is a slippery slope here. Nations with strict gun control usually restrict knives, pepper spray, and stunners as well. This is a good point. There also may be a slippery slope in which nations with weakening gun controls also start legalizing the most dangerous sorts of knives. US state laws against switchblade ownership have been, in recent years, disappearing: [http://nashvillepublicmedia.org/blog/2014/11/03/knife-rights-movement-sharpens-switchblades-come-back-tennessee/](http://nashvillepublicmedia.org/blog/2014/11/03/knife-rights-movement-sharpens-switchblades-come-back-tennessee/) > [@](#): > > Alaska, New Hampshire, Missouri, Indiana, Kansas and Texas all have repealed knife laws since 2010. On July 1st, Tennessee joined the list. > > “We tend to think of the Second Amendment as a firearms-related amendment,” Ritter says. “The Second Amendment doesn’t say firearms. It says arms. … ” Mr. Ritter is right. The second amendment does not mention firearms. Nor does it mention small arms. Limits on switchblades, and, for that matter, on artillery, are just as much an infringement of the original second amendment as are limits on pistols. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/32 "2015-06-16T01:18:34Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > the most dangerous sorts of knives. How is a knife that opens up with a button any more dangerous than a folding knife, or a machete? I’ve been working with my state assembly rep trying to get the law on switchblades repealed here. It’s an archaic throwback to the 50’s and West Side Story. People can walk around openly carrying an AR15 but a spring assisted knife is somehow so much more dangerous that the penalty for having one is 9 months imprisonment and a 10K fine? Ludicrous! There isn’t even an exemption for law enforcement those knives are so dangerous! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/33 "2015-06-16T02:42:49Z")
Unless homicide rates have fallen, it’s rather irrelevant whether gun homicide rates have fallen. The dead person doesn’t care what weapon you used. If you ban tennis shoes, tennish shoe jaywalking will also be reduced. Jaywalking itself, not so much. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/34 "2015-06-16T10:36:26Z")
Also you need to look at certain crimes like home invasions. If those have gone up, it would mean criminals have caught onto the fact that the law abiding are disarmed. Of course, modern gun control laws do not and cannot go that far any longer. I have no problem with sensible gun regulations to keep them out of the hands of criminals, at least at the state level. The feds should really not be messing around with guns except as it pertains to imported weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/35 "2015-06-16T13:55:58Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Your invocation of age eighteen, whether as a cut-off age for bearing guns, or a cut-off age for some licensing exam, is just as unconstitutional as any other gun restriction. Seriously? I cannot think of any right in the constitution that is absolute and without some restrictions. Even free speech is limited (e.g. slander or yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire is not protected speech). It is just weird to think that the 2nd amendment should come with no boundaries whatsoever. By that thinking the 2nd amendment says the right to bear “arms” shall not be restricted so in your world civilians buying anti aircraft missiles and grenades and yes, even nukes, should be allowed because hey…those all fall under the definition of “arms” and all restrictions are unconstitutional right? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/36 "2015-06-16T14:23:51Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > There is nothing in the text of constitution, or the thinking of the framers, that would limit the right by age. I can see some situations in which a fourteen year old has more need for protection than his parents. Your invocation of age eighteen, whether as a cut-off age for bearing guns, or a cut-off age for some licensing exam, is just as unconstitutional as any other gun restriction. Only difference is, it is, like restrictions on the rights of ex-convicts, the kind of second amendment violation conservatives like. > Tim314 – We need to step back and ask what the real issue is. > > One thing the study struggles with ([see page 10](http://www.taleoftwostates.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Connecticut-Study-Rudolph_AJPH201411682_Final.pdf)) is why the good effects of the law took years to take effect, and then did so gradually. The study can’t really give a good answer because the methodology doesn’t let us know how the law helped. > > My hypothesis is that law helped by sending the message that gun lovers should avoid Connecticut, and that it would be a good place for those who don’t want to be in an armed camp to live. Since maybe fifteen percent of Americans move every year, it takes time for [the big effect of ideological/geographic sorting](http://www.thebigsort.com/home.php) to take effect. But it did. > > So what does that say about assault weapons bans? Well, you may be right about a federal ban not doing much to make the US safer.\* But if my state banned their sale, it would send a strong message to Pennsylvania’s gun enthusiasts: Go West (or South), young man. That’s because these macho-looking guns have become tremendously popular among those who fancy having a home arsenal. Send them the right message, and, without having to put anyone in jail, firearms enthusiasts gradually leave. Then the rest of us are safer. > > * * * > > - IMHO, the primary benefit of a United Statas federal assault rifle sales ban would to reduce the number of those weapons in Mexico. Hogwash. Why haven’t you moved to a more gun unfriendly state since Pennsylvania has been sending you a very strong message for a very long time that we like guns here? Answer: job, family, etc. outweigh the gun issue in importance to you. The same is true of people who like guns. While I will not say it has never happened, I have never personally known anybody on either side who moved solely due to gun politics. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/37 "2015-06-16T14:46:05Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Seriously, I don’t think so. Philly Guy is in favor of broad forms of gun control if I recall correctly and is making poor arguments in shallow attempts that seemingly support 2nd amendment rights for a reason only he knows. As a side note, a survey just came out from [Rasmussen](http://http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/americans_prefer_living_in_neighborhoods_with_guns) that claims the majority of people feel safer where guns are allowed as compared to a place where no guns are allowed. No idea the validity of this survey but it seemed on point. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/38 "2015-06-16T14:50:39Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > I haven’t really looked at this issue, but some people are claiming that the study is flawed. > Furthermore, it’s claimed that Connecticut’s firearm homicide rate was falling even faster BEFORE the law went into effect; i.e., the law slowed down the rate of decline. > > [http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2015/06/daniel-websters-cherry-picked-claim-that-firearm-homicides-in-connecticut-fell-40-because-of-a-gun-licensing-law/](http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2015/06/daniel-websters-cherry-picked-claim-that-firearm-homicides-in-connecticut-fell-40-because-of-a-gun-licensing-law/) If the data in the link is correct, it looks like this is an example of data mining. The Connecticut gun homicide rate relative to the rest of the country went up for three years after the law passed, then went down for seven, then went back up for five years. By choosing to look only at the next 10 years the study got all of the relative decline and none of the relative increase that followed it. In fact the gun homicide rate in Connecticut as of 2010 was higher relative to the rest of the country than it was before the gun control law. It seems to me that looking at the data the gun control law seemed to have no effect on the gun homicide rate. That is what has been seen in other studies which have shown no impact on homicide rates and only impacts on suicide rates. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/39 "2015-06-16T14:59:21Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t care what age the age of majority is set at. I do care that it be consistent. 18, fine. 21, fine. 42, fine. > > All law abiding adults enjoy certain rights as adults. Some of these are enumerated in the Constitution. Whatever age is set as the age of majority that is when all the rights of adulthood should be recognized. > > Enumerated constitutional rights being limited should receive higher levels of scrutiny than non-enumerated rights. Drinking isn’t an apt comparison. Poor judgment in certain age groups is not an argument against gun ownership, but one against the age of majority. There will always be those with poor judgment. That’s part of the tradeoff when we recognize the right to arms. > > Consider this: 18 year Olds are not prohibited from owning or possessing handguns. They are prohibited from purchasing them. So the 18 year old can receive a handgun from a family member but one without a family member available is unable to legally obtain one. > > Why should one 18 year old enjoy their right to self defense with the quintassential self defense weapon and the other not? That’s a stupid law. I think you are arguing for the proverbial foolish consistency. Age of majority has nothing to do with constitutional rights, I don’t see anything about age of majority in the constitution. A 12 year old enjoys the same constitutional rights as a 22 year old. They have the right to an attorney, they have the right to free speech, they have the right be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Why limit the right to bear arms but not to speech? The notion of majority and competency is separate from the notion of when constitutional rights attach. If I am a homeless 14 year old, why don’t I have the right to self defense? Why can’t I own a gun? If I am a 14 year old in a gang ridden neighborhood where 14 year olds get jumped and killed on a somewhat regular basis, why can’t I have a gun? What if I’m 12? What if I’m 8? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457/40 "2015-06-16T15:14:12Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > US state laws against switchblade ownership have been, in recent years, disappearing: > > [http://nashvillepublicmedia.org/blog/2014/11/03/knife-rights-movement-sharpens-switchblades-come-back-tennessee/](http://nashvillepublicmedia.org/blog/2014/11/03/knife-rights-movement-sharpens-switchblades-come-back-tennessee/) That’s because state laws against switchblade ownership were passed in response to panic over [an essentially non-existent threat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchblade#1950s_Gang_Usage_.26_Controversy). They parallel the reefer madness era pretty closely. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-working-well-in-connecticut/722457.md?page=3)