.

Gun Control, School Safety, Mental Illness Focus of New State Panel

In response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Connecticut is convening a panel of experts to explore all necessary facets of trying to prevent future tragedies.


HARTFORD -- A panel of experts appointed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has been tasked with making recommendations about how to improve public safety in Connecticut, particularly in schools.

The committee, which will be led by second-term Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson, will also look at current policies and see if changes are warranted in the areas of mental health treatment and gun violence prevention.

The announcement was Malloy's first discussion about how the state would react to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. It was held outside his office at the State Capitol in Hartford Thursday, just shy of three weeks since the massacre on Dec. 14 when 20 children and six adults were shot and killed by a lone gunman who ultimately took his own life.

“Shortly after the initial horror and the immediate grief over what occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School...there was one question on the lips of many of our residents: How do we make sure this never happens again?," Malloy said.

"It’s the right question," he continued, "even as we recognize that despite our best efforts, bad things will happen. We don’t yet know the underlying cause behind this tragedy, and we probably never will (he said the shooter did not leave a note). But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. I want the commission to have the ability to study every detail, so they can help craft meaningful legislative and policy changes.”

The commission, he said, will look for ways to "make sure our gun laws are as tight as they are reasonable, that our mental health system can reach those that need its help, and that our law enforcement has the tools it needs to protect public safety, particularly in our schools.”

He also discussed the need to remove the stigma surrounding mental illness. 

The commission, which must present an initial report to Malloy by March 15 — in time for consideration during the regular session of the General Assembly — will consist of experts in various areas, including education, mental health, law enforcement and emergency response.

Jackson is the only person who had been announced as a committee member as of Thursday. All told, there will be 15 people on the committee; Malloy has reached out to several people and is awaiting their response.

Malloy said he hopes Connecticut can be a model for the rest of the nation in terms of how to address gun control issues. Still, he said, the state cannot work alone.

"It's still far too easy to buy guns in some states and transport them to our state," he said. "We need Washington to get its act together so that they can put together a reasonable national gun policy that protects the citizens of our state and our nation. I am thankful, therefore, that President Obama has gotten this conversation started, and I'm committed to do all I can to allow this conversation to proceed." 

Malloy, a longtime advocate for stricter gun control laws, spent much of his time during Thursday's news conference speaking about that very issue. The gun control debate will clearly be one of the commission's main focal points.

The governor said that if the national Brady Act had not been allowed to expire by the U.S. Congress, then 30-round clips would still be illegal, and, perhaps, Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza may not have had access to them.

"Look, these aren't used to hunt deer," he said of assault weapons. "You don't need 30-round clips to go hunting. You don't need 30-round clips to honor the constitution of the United States. And I think it's time we have a realistic discussion about the weapons that are being used time and time again in these mass causality situations. I mean it would be stupid not to have that conversation."

Asked if there should be guards in every school, and, if so, whether they should be armed, Malloy said: "I hope not."

"...But there is a reason we have the commission and that is to look at these issues, and ultimately that will be a local decision, but we will take a balanced approach and balanced look at that for final determination," he said. "But with all the needs, you would hope that is not one of the needs. But if it is, we will take a look at it."

Jackson said he agrees with much of the governor's stance on gun control, but that he expects to hear all sides of the issue.

"I think one of the reasons the governor chose me is I have the ability to separate myself emotionally" and look at the facts of the issue, Jackson said.

Jackson became somewhat emotional when a reporter asked if he had time to dedicate to the panel while simultaneously running a large city. Jackson admitted he is busy, but said the panel charge is a great one. 

"My son is in first grade, and this affects us all," he said. "This is the most important thing I can be doing right now."

Mr Mike January 10, 2013 at 09:48 AM
Terrie, So, what Justice William J Brennan Jr says, as contained in Mary Davis' comment, is praiseworthy and the way ALL must think; whereas Justice Scalia's opinion should be ignored? Why? And now you go on this tiraid about psychiatric drugs, etc., and call anyone who may have a differant opinion(about the subject of gun control),"total idiot"(s). Doesn' that go against the freedoms of Belief and Expression that the "Founding Fathers" also stated? Again, look to yourself before you call others derogatory names.You need not respond, since you have stated "That is all I have to say on this subject. Period!"
brutus January 10, 2013 at 02:24 PM
Terrie, my reply was to Mary Davis. I don't see anything accurate or eloquent about Mr Mike's comment!
Terrie Hildreth January 10, 2013 at 03:04 PM
Your indoctrination is showing Mr. Mike, J. Brennan Jr. is saying you are born with your liberties as granted to you by God as "INDIVIDUALS" Government intervenes in that individualism and changes that belief system when you are a child but most don't understand by time they are an adult that they have even been indoctrinated towards the beliefs of the state. Our founding father's were ever so gracious to suffer a dear price and sit down and think long and hard on how they could preserve those individual rights for future generations hence the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So, yes! I agree with J. Brennen Jr. simply, because he is on every ones side to be allowed to be their own individual self to be responsible to make their own conscious decisions and and not have Government tell us what we can eat, what we can drink, how much money we can make, how much money they are going to take, hence; "the destruction of the free market" as they squander what they do steal in taxes and line the pockets of their crony's and put very little back into what it was taken and intended to be used for and now they tell us what medical plan we can have! and if you don't purchase it as an employer, you will be fined! and now they also want to tell me what fire arm I have a right to own and that is just a fraction of the list of Constitutional laws they over stepping!
Terrie Hildreth January 10, 2013 at 03:06 PM
Did you know there isn't even a law that states that American people's wages outside of owning a business have the right to be taxed, it is done by coercion and what did Obama just do!? up the pay role tax. and gives Hollywood tax breaks, of course he did, they helped fund his campaign. So, you go a head and continue to believe in the self evident crooked system we know and call government because "governing" is not what they are doing as the very meaning of the word, they are telling us how to live and taking our individual right to choose a way and as the noose continues to get tighter and tighter to survive, you will remember this conversation. Have a great day Mr. Mike!
Terrie Hildreth January 10, 2013 at 03:16 PM
My apologies Brutus, You must not have realized your comment was in the reply box of Mr. Mike.
Mr Mike January 10, 2013 at 03:30 PM
brutus, I understood your comment was directed at Mary Davis' post, from your previous posts about gun control on another article.But I did not say anything since I thought it was a good example "Mr. Mike and Brutus can't grasp this concept" of the immediate negative labeling, derogatory statements about and lashing out at, anyone who gun advocates think may hold a different opinion from them on the subject. Including you " I don't see anything accurate or eloquent about Mr Mike's comment!" I won't dispute the "eloquent" part, and I am giving my opinion, but I do not believe I have been purposely inaccurate. If you would, please point out my specific inaccurate references/facts so I can check them out.
brutus January 10, 2013 at 03:53 PM
mr mike, don't take any offense. I was just repeating my description of mary davis' comment and didn't mean my swipe at your comment to be taken seriously. but I took it upon myself to read through your posts anyway to find something inaccurate. honestly, there's too many to read them all, but from what I've read so far I can see that I disagree with just about everything you have to say. but as you said, it's your opinion and not purposely "inaccurate."
Mr Mike January 10, 2013 at 06:01 PM
brutus, thank you for your reply. I have no problem with anyone having a different opinion and discussing their view in a calm and logical manner. That's the way it should be! Snide, derogatory, name calling, etc. type remarks directed at anyone who happens to disagree with you however, should be avoided. I know, sometimes they happen to show up innocently in the heat of typing. No problem.I am glad you checked out some of my other comments - I do try to stay as accurate as possible. There are so many of my comments because this subject seems to ignite a lot of people that feel different then I do. So I am trying to respond to each with a conflicting position. I may be outnumbered on this particular site, but it does not mean I'm wrong!
Mr Mike January 11, 2013 at 09:47 AM
Terrie,Terrie,Terrie- I don't know where to start! This discussion was about Gun Control. So far, I believe you have condemed and ranted on: National Health, the "government", laws and regulations,taxation, the news media, President Obama, the big "indoctrination" plot and the "drug the kids" conspiracy! All of which I believe you attribute to the mysterious "big government"! Then, you proceed to deride anyone who might hold a different viewpoint-they are "ignorant" and "can't grasp the concept". However, when you are advised you were not correct in the case of one of those you condemed-then they no longer have those characteristics! I'm not sure of the spelling, but I think the term hypocrite comes to mind. Just out of curiosity, are you a "Tea Party or Tea Party Express" member/believer?
Terrie Hildreth January 11, 2013 at 06:31 PM
WOW!, Okay, let me start by saying Mr. Mike, the word ignorant means lack of knowledge or not knowing. It does not mean that one is "stupid" as you seem to be insinuating. I shouldn't have to explain any of the above to you, if you "weren't" indoctrinated into a mind set of defending a system that reveals it's own self evident breakdown of our society as well as the self evident corruption taking place with in our Government. If you think trusting our Government is a wise choice then you are a contributing factor as to why things never change!. If our educational system was working so well, why, then, morally, economically and financially is our society breaking down?.. This subject IS about gun control, Mr. Mike, but now that Government has made a mess of the entire system by breaking the moral code by letting lobbyist convince them to back big Corps, which by the way Mussolini called "fascism", the merger of State and Corporate powers. And for those of us that see it do not want our rights infringed upon because people like your self refuse to see the system for what it is.This country does not belong to the people anymore. And many like your self can't see it. I am not tooting my horn I just read, because I want to know and learn to be the change I want to see in this world. I am not trying to insult anyone but it is all self evident what is happening to our country and most just go along to get along and don't want to know. That will prove to be a huge mistake I fear.
Terrie Hildreth January 11, 2013 at 11:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAvMHWhdEUU This is a very interesting video Mr. Mike I hope you decide to watch it. For the record, My choice of political parties is of no concern of yours. But I will say this, it has nothing to do with the Tea Party description you are referring to and I will also state, Romney nor Obama weren't even close to my choice of who I thought should be running this country right now!
Mr Mike January 15, 2013 at 05:53 PM
Great News! New York State passes very strict gun law. Lots of good restrictions on what,who,how of gun ownership and buying/selling. Lets see if Connecticut can do them one better. See link below for details. http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20130115/US.Gun.Control.NY/
Gumby January 15, 2013 at 07:20 PM
Unless they pass laws against suicide bombing I don't see where any laws passed by man will prevent what you are proposing Mike. Was that you I heard on the radio saying they should add a ten year prison sentence to discourage people?
Mr Mike January 15, 2013 at 08:03 PM
Hi Gumby, Your reply ended up under my item about the new law passed in NY State, If that is where you wanted it, then your first sentence makes no sense to me! No it was not me on the radio. But, if you mean extend the prison time for crimes with a gun and unlawful possesion of one, then, if you look back at my previous posts on the subject, I think I suggested that a ways back.
Gumby January 15, 2013 at 08:17 PM
Explain how an additional 10 yr sentence would have stopped Adam Lanza? You wouldn't consider him a suicide bomber? That is the only way it wouldn't make any sense.
brutus January 15, 2013 at 08:28 PM
Gumby, this is the exact point. we go back and forth about gun rights, gun control, the Constitution, blah blah blah, but the simple question is what could we have done to stop Adam Lanza? and there is no gun law that would have stopped him. so what then is gun control other than a power grab and an attempt to either take away rights or an attempt by politicians to appear like they care? as I have said on countless posts....even if you take away the gun, you do not take away the crazy. Adam Lanza would still have existed, would still have had the mind of a cold-blooded killer, and would still have carried out an act of terror, somehow, some way. the questions we need to answer have nothing to do with guns and if politicians and the general public REALLY cared about saving lives, they would be asking those difficult questions instead of grandstanding.
Terrie Hildreth January 16, 2013 at 02:21 AM
Gumby, It's not worth arguing with an ignorant person, Because if Mr. Mike really read and paid attention to history he would know that this is the path always taken to lead a nation down the road to tyranny. I have no idea how old Mr. Mike is nor do I care but he's probably not old enough to remember what real freedom used to be like in this country as well as once having an excellent education system, the very thing we landed up letting Government get their sticky fingers into and so we have people like Mr. Mike now that thinks he's slick about what he thinks Government should be doing with our Bill of Right's. He just has no clue of what he is willing to throw away in the name false security although he thinks he does. He needs to read about what our Government did to the Cherokee nation in the 1800's and how much Government promised to take care of them before throwing them off their own land and stealing their resources. Mr. Mike please don't respond. I am done wasting my precious energy on you. You are not worth my time!
Mr Mike January 16, 2013 at 03:21 AM
Gumby, I am proposing much stricter laws regarding who can have, how many, what kind,how obtained, where kept, ammunition limits, etc on GUNS. I proposed nothing about laws against suicide bombers, so "what you are proposing Mike." makes no sense. There were no "bombs" involved in the Newtown incident .Maybe we should come up with a broader term for anyone who kills others just to make some kind of a statement, that possibley they only know, or other "nutjob" reason.There's a possible term to consider(just joking). As to "stopping" Adam Lanza, I do not know of any law that would completely prevent things like this happening all together. That is not to say that there frequency and ease of obtaining what is used to do it, cannot be reduced substantially by better gun control, which is what we need to do.
Gumby January 16, 2013 at 04:14 AM
Finally... [quote]Mr Mike <wrote> 10:21 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013 Gumby, I am proposing much stricter laws ....<snip> As to "stopping" Adam Lanza, I do not know of any law that would completely prevent things like this happening all together.[/quote] And you see nothing rwong with this thought process? Only with my tpying? Laws won't do anything to prevent but let's do it anyway? How about teaching the children morals? And how to resolve conflicts without using "video game violence"? How about allowing parents to discipline their kids w/o police intervention? Why not allow school prayer? Maybe, just maybe, passing the no prayer in school law (removing it) is a contributing factor? What has worked for so many years before? Was it laws? Or moral values?
Terrie Hildreth January 16, 2013 at 04:27 AM
Bravo!!!! Bravo!!!! Brutus!...Very well stated!
Mr Mike January 16, 2013 at 05:38 AM
Terrie, If you do no not want me to reply, then stop referring to me or my comments in your posts and stop using derogatory terms aimed at me! Believe me, I truely hope I never see another comment from you.
Mr Mike January 16, 2013 at 06:00 AM
Gumby, did you not see the phrase "completely prevent" in my sentence? Anything that can be done to reduce these occurances is a step in the right direction in my opinion. As to them not doing anything to prevent.., I believe you are wrong. Restrict the easyness of obtaining a gun and you reduce the ability to carry out these types of actions, my opinion. As far as moral values suggestions, I agree with them all! Shocking, I know.
Terrie Hildreth January 22, 2013 at 11:15 PM
That last link didn't work but if you choose to take the time to watch this Mr. Mike, I think you would get a better understanding where I am coming from!. Nothing I said was meant to be taken personal. Just hoping people would realize what is really happening right under their nose to our country and freedoms, Constitution and the bill of rights! that is all! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK76Dl18uAU
Mr Mike January 24, 2013 at 03:16 AM
Well Terrie, I got through about half of the vidio. Almost as soon as I saw the name Ron Paul, I had my doubts, but I watched anyway.Then I did some quick queries on names, and they forgot one big one associated with this group, Pat Buchannon(not sure of spelling), so I knew I was in for a lot of extreme babble! Lets go back to wampum like the Indians used, don't forget to watch out for the "boogieman"- he's under the bed, it's all a big conspiracy by THEM! Sorry, I do not want to return to colonial times, the world has come too far.Yes, things are not perfect, and some changes may be needed But, I am pretty sure almost all modern nations follow a similiar monatary structure.This group is way to far right for me.You are entitled to your perspectives, they are just not mine.
Terrie Hildreth January 25, 2013 at 04:06 AM
You are locked in the matrix and a lost cause... lol even when the facts are presented to you and broken down while starring you in the face all at the same time and you still don't see it... I understand now you are a typical liberal who sees this country's destruction through rose colored glasses...When was the last time congress gave us freedom and not legislated it away? When was the last time they didn't take money out of our pockets and not made us poorer? When was the last time they didn't put us in debt?. I'm sure you will have a typical liberal answer which will be an answer of denial. Good luck in your fantasy world, reality will be that much harder on folks like your self.
brutus January 25, 2013 at 04:33 AM
Terrie, the biggest problem with mr mike's response is the common mislabeling of people like ron paul and pat buchanan. when someone labels them as far right, then you know their mind has been clouded with the liberal bias found in the media and academia. mr mike, please don't take any offense....as you said, I am entitled to my perspectives and you are certainly entitled t yours. and I don't fault you for not agreeing with the points made in the video Terrie linked to. but please consider that pat buchanan is what would be termed a "paleoconservative" which is very different from a far right republican in that he was adamantly against the iraq war. paleocons are non-interventionists and base their political beliefs on traditional american ideals and the "old right" not the "far right." and ron paul is even less far right as he is far far far to the LEFT of even obama on some issues. he is a true libertarian, not bound by the false left/right paradigm. again, you can vehemently disagree with ron paul, pat buchanan, and whoever else, but be careful not to fall into the trap of labeling people as far-this or far-that just because that's what you've been told. those labels are thrown at people to minimize them and make them seem extreme because their opponents can't otherwise challenge them.
Terrie Hildreth January 26, 2013 at 05:51 PM
Thank you! Brutus, very well said, and you are correct Mr. Mike is entitled to his opinion. It does amaze me how he totally contradicts him self through out all of his comments though which indicates to me he does not research very little of what his Government does. He just listens to what they tell him., hence, the meaning of "allegiance to the state". Dr. Paul is an extremely smart man!, well educated!, informative of the REAL history of our country as well as foreign...He is an amazingly strict Constitutionalists and he has followed it faithfully through out his entire Congressional career.,Although, when the main stream media got done with their character assassination on him, they then ignored him. He is, as well, a non interventionist which our founding fathers warned us of not getting involved in the entanglement of other nations unless it proven to a threat to our national security and was approved by Congress first but most don't realize we "invaded Iraq and other nations with out Congressional approval. That 's why I respect Dr. Paul so very much for being a strict Constitutionalists and rightfully so, since it means he was doing his job!!! after all, this is a America and that's what our country was founded on!!. I think that's why it blows my mind when people talk as though it is an archaic document, quite the contrary, it was written to keep the line in place from congress and Government to cross that tyrannical line. The Constitution is the Law of the land.
Mr Mike January 27, 2013 at 03:46 AM
Terrie, First of all, please give specific references to where I "contradict myself", do not just say it. Second,who specifically are the "they" and what specifically am I being told; and what is the definition/meaning of "allegiance to the state" and what is it's source? You seem to consider yourself a scholar on the Constitution, what are your credentials? If you are referring to the original Constitution, then your "right to bear arms" does not exist , slavery is ok and you cannot vote,among other things! Those came as Amendments to the Constution. If you are including the Amendments and saying once ratified they cannot be changed,because they are now part of the Constitution, then I guess many are breaking the Law by drinking booze(18th), except there was a change(19th) repeal! As to Ron Paul, you admire him and like everything he espouses, ok that's your right. I do not have to, that's my right! As to Government acts abiding by the Constitution, I think I'll let the Supreme Court rule on that. Oh, that's in the Constitution too.
Mr Mike January 27, 2013 at 07:29 PM
Terrie, You are zealot and will never be able to rationally discuss any point of view that does not agree with yours. I could point out instances to contradict your accusations against Congress, but why bother? You will just come back with another senseless rant!
Mr Mike January 27, 2013 at 07:47 PM
brutus, I had never heard of the term "paleoconservative", but in checking Wiki about the people who's names were attached to the vidio I was pointed to, I did come across the term. I was reacting to the slant of the vidio and lumped all the "sponsors" together, my mistake. I have given up on trying to hold a rational(vs emotional or my way only) discussion with Terrie. I am sorry you ended up in the middle of it. I have no problem carrying on a discussion of the points of view on gun control with you.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something