66°
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, Conn. – Kara Nelson Baekey, a Norwalk mother of two, was shocked, saddened and outraged after the Newtown school shooting and decided to make sure a tragedy like that never happens again. She launched a Fairfield County chapter of One Million Moms For Gun Control and plans to fight until legislators listen.
“I shed a lot of tears about it and came to terms that the same thing could happen at my kids school,” Nelson Baekey said. “I decided that I was going to do everything in my power to make sure that doesn’t happen.”
One Million Moms For Gun Control was founded by Shannon Watts, a mother of five from Indiana, the day after the Newtown tragedy and now has more than 100 chapters across the world. The group plans to hold a March for Change at the state capitol in Hartford on Feb. 14, the two-month anniversary of the tragedy, to demand that legislators do something about gun violence, she said. Although the group is demanding legislation be passed, they are not calling for an all-out ban on guns.
“We’re not opposed to sensible gun laws,” she said. “We’re not opposed to people owning guns, and we actually have members that are licensed gun owners.”
The group supports reinstating a ban on automatic weapons, reducing the number of clips allowed in magazines and closing background check loopholes that allow nearly 40 percent of gun sales to take place without background checks, Nelson Baekey said.
The group uses social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to encourage members to contact their local representatives, she said, but realizes the push from their opponents is difficult to overcome.
The influence of gun rights lobbyists in Washington, D.C., is so powerful that gun control advocates can’t compete with them, Nelson Baekey said. But her organization is focused on drawing attention to its message to bring about change and won’t waste time debating the issues, she said.
“There’s been a lot of dialogue and a lot of debate throughout the years and it’s got us nowhere,” she said. “We’re done talking about it. We are about bringing about change.”
For more information about One Million Moms For Gun Control visit the group’s website or Facebook page. For more information about the March For Change in Hartford, click here.
Comments (92)
MSDanbury, I very much appreciate your thoughtful reply. Thank you.
The problem is: how do we assess who are the ill? Does the gun shop owner do this? What about the idea that was put to me recently by a doctor in the mental health field of providing affidavits from two "close" friends/relations who can vouch for the mentally ill person's safe use of a firearm? I can think of many ways around this. I can't figure out one thing that will secure guns from the mentally ill: privacy laws negate examination of health records (as they should), admittance to a mental healthcare facility does not guarantee anything as privacy laws protect such admissions from public knowledge. "Mental illness" admittance can be everything from rehab from drugs and alcohol to schizophrenia. I see this as a huge conundrum because mental illness should not be stigmatized. It is, after all, brain wiring problems that make a very few violent while the rest are probably just miserable and unable to harm another person. How is this discerned in terms of gun laws?
I agree with the background check and "loopholes" (people don't seem to agree about what that term means) being a nationwide effort. Fragmented by state, county or community these checks and purchases will adversely affect a neighboring, more strictly held, gun-law place. A federal law that sticks is required.
There are political consequences to all community acts especially those that are adverse. Think Prohibition or Hurricane Katrina. Gun owners are in the company of many who have been the subject of the political process including women, blacks, immigrants, finance companies and banks. It's the world we live in. There are many, many people in Congress and at least one former president who are gun owners and believe in that right. Removing certain weapons and reducing "mag size", I believe, is a regulation that is trying to rid good gun owners from bad ones. And, honestly, given the confusion about what makes a gun "automatic" or "assault", I have read the Federal Legislation that expired regarding assault rifles, I worry about their capacity to really harm a lot of people quickly. I can say I don't get the mentality that believes these are a necessity in our communities. (Full disclosure: I was not harmed but did experience the spray of gunfire from an Uzi years ago and have never quite recovered from the fear of these weapons. And, even without that experience, I don't understand the need for this type of capacity in a home.)
It's exactly the point that you make that would make a law possibly work: the bad guy won't get the tax or insurance and, without it, it clearly delineates him/her as an unlawful gun owner subject to legal prosecution. I think that is a good thing for law abiding gun owners who do the right thing.
Please don't be surprised that this has become a political agenda: of course it has! Newtown/Sandy Hook demands a response. Adam Lanza didn't just shoot a lot of kids and adults and himself, he shot the political system right between the eyes. The constituency is scared and is saying so, expressing it loudly, and demanding laws and, I think, an illusory protection from this type of situation ever happening again. (Thus, the Million Moms.) There are many agendas in the political process and this is one of them. Gun owners do not have to feel singled out.
I appreciate your consciousness about the ramifications of owning a gun(s). I believe yours is the first truly honest expression I have read about the kind of learning you are pursuing to stay safe. Unfortunately, what often comes across in these types of forums is the "ego maniacs with a chip on their shoulder." It feels very reactive and out of control and, thus, I think, makes anti-gun people very nervous and equally reactive about their position. What you have shared is, IMO, very valuable and insightful about at least one gun owner who carries and why. Thank you.
Tim, everything you mention could have been avoided by lifting a single law. Gun Free Zones. Do a little research, If I recall, all but one of the most recent mass shootings occurred in gun free zones. If these shooters suspected there could be resistance, they may have reconsidered. Please tell me Tim if you believe criminals care about gun free zones? The movie theater shooter had several theaters closer to choose from, ho chose the one with no guns allowed. Tim, I feel your response was an emotional response.
MSDanbury
Since you feel my response is an emotional response Here are the fact to prove you wrong
England where guns are banned vs USA
I THINK IT SAYS IT ALL
9,974 TOTAL Gun crimes in England
52,447 deliberate non- leathal shooting in the USA
23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the USA
30,470 firearm-related deaths in the USA
Tim, you are showing England vs US. Show me England before they banned guns and after they banned guns. In Australia, show me before and after. I think you will find that crime goes up. Think the US is bad now, try and ban guns and see how bad it gets.Crime in England went up 35%. In Australia, home invasions went up 29%. Ban guns in the US and who will have the guns? Criminals will have them and they will be free to do what they want to who they want. Why do you have such a problem with responsible people having guns for protection? Do you think a gun turns a responsible person into a killer?
"Wacko"? Pretty juvenile!
God help us if you "Wacko" liberals get your way. You all think alike. If you don't like it, ban it! The hell with the rest of the world. You are right and that is it.
You live in a fantasy world and thing Big Government is going to wipe your a%% for you when you soil yourself. I was raised to take care of myself and my family because nobody else will.
As home invasions go up, I hope everyone has the police sitting in a car at their driveway. Not likely, as your 911 call will result in a 20 minute wait. Then when they get there, they will likely not know how to handle an armed intruder because all the firearm training sites dried up because of the ban. No guns, no gun ranges, no ammo.
You resort to insults, grow up! I am done. You are hopeless. I hope the government is there to protect you if you need it.
Oh and brush up on your 2A facts.
Have a good day!
UK, The most violent country in Europe:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
Cumbria shootings (2010): 12 dead & 11 wounded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
UK now looking to ban knives:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/british-doctors-call-for-ban-on-long-kitchen-knives-to-end-stabbings/
Of course, you could be one of those people who don't care about crimes unless they're committed with guns. Rapes, robberies, burglaries, assaults can go up as long as they're not using guns!
Exactly. England has over 2000 violent crimes per 100,000 people, we are about a tenth of that, A TENTH. This equates to about 2 per 100 in England and 2 per 1000 here. So I guess its better to be ten times more likely to get raped, mugged, robbed, beaten or killed, as long as those evil guns are banned.
Or lets take another country that bans guns, Russia, and compare their MURDER rates. They have 4 times the murder rate than we do, they just dont use guns. So I guess being dead is less of an issue if you arent killed with a bullet?
These are all knee jerk reactions, an attempt to avoid dealing with the FACT that evil people ARE OUT THERE and any one of us might run into one today, tommorrow or if we are lucky never. The only important thing we should all note, is that just like we can point at Lanzas mom for irresponsible gun storage, we can & should also point a finger at those who support the helplessness by promoting laws that we all know deep inside do nothing to stop the criminal or nut case.
Newtown was a tragedy, but requireing ALL guns to be locked up will prevent anybody following the law from protecting their home. How many people will die if that becomes law? Its our duty as Americans to work towards enabling people to protect their life, liberty & pursuit of happiness, not render them helpless in the face of violence which, unfortunately, is just part of humanity.
I just read a great article on this on topix of Norwalk. I suggest that everyone read it as it says it all..Of course you need to find it through all the spam.
Yes .jrey I also read it..It made a very good point of explaining why we need gun control..It was very hard finding it with all the spam from one of the posters that I would add also posts here..But I would strongly suggest that everyone goes to that site and pick through all the spam and read it.
Where is this magic link you keep referring to?
No one else seems to know where it is.
Can you actually post the link or the article you read?
We would like to see it
..and renewing the assault weapons ban?
The pistol grip,bayonet lug,collapsable stock,the flash hider,barrell shroud.These are all cosmetic features that do nothing to enhance the performance of a firearm.But help in ergonomics.SO we are now into banning ergonomics?
“We’re not opposed to sensible gun laws,” she said.
No one in the right mind would oppose a sensible gun law. A much better question: Is the group opposed to gun laws that make no sense, such as Gun Free Zones law? Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period. Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.
Last thing: With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has occurred in a place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms, i.e. Gun Free Zones.
People, especially gun owners, who support bans on certain guns are missing the point. If you dont own assault look alikes you might think it wont matter to you if they ban those. UNtil somebody uses a gun you like & they come after those. And they WILL. People who say "we dont need guns designed for the military" need to think a little harder. Revolvers were designed for the military, bolt action rifles were designed for the military, semi auto handguns were designed for the military. Almost every type of firearme we have was designed for the military, EXCEPT the guns we call assault weapons. Those are like nuetered military guns if anything. No military unit EVER was issued a semi automatic AR or AK.
The sad fact is that the people crying the loudest about gun control are one of the biggest reasons for these atrocities. Gun free zone laws allowed this more than any other single contributing factor. Until the gun grabbers admit that we cant even have a rational discussion. Think about it. The guys, who will decide this, the ones who will vote for it. They are in a gun free zone, but theirs has metal detectors & assault weapons enforcing it. If Bob Duff, Chris Perone, Larry Cafero, Terrie Wood & the rest of out elected officials believe in gun free zones then why do THEY have real security but leave our kids unprotected? If theres a funding issue they should come second not first.
Gun control is NOT the answer & every one of our elected officials KNOWS it. Being proactive and exercising our rights is a great first step for us. Repealing gun free school laws is the ONLY rational first step for them.
Im sure everyone has good intentions, but ask yourself if you dont think those staff members would have been better off with a gun than a telephone. Ask yourself if YOU were in that position whether you would be saying what you say now. Its nice to pretend the world is or can be a nice warm cozy safe place. But its stupid to let that fantasy cause us to outlaw the things we need to maintain that fantasy.
Those children were killed part because WE violated their teachers, their guardians, right to defend them. IF you really care thats where to start. Honoring peoples civil rights wherever they work. If thats NOT on the table then you dont really care, that much is obvious.
@Ken P Jr. Your commentary is so astute. The ruling elite does not limit its self-proclaimed "mastermind" status to reserving armed protection to themselves and their loved ones, it also extends the "proper for me, but not for thee" philosophy to their retirement plans, their health care, their transportation options, and their job security. We are "peasants" to be ruled.
A remarkable assessment of what it is to live in America. For a better understanding of what it is to be a "peasant to be ruled", I suggest you move to North Korea.
How can you be certain that in the absence of gun-free school laws, teachers at Newtown Elementary would have decided to keep guns in or near their classrooms?
I know a number of teachers and I can't imagine any of them wanting to bring a gun to school every day.
I don't know what you mean by "certain". If you mean 100% certainty, then you'll never come up with anything new in your life. There's no such thing as 100% certainty. I legally carry a loaded gun everywhere I go. I feel safe with it in my person. Can I be stabbed to death by a robber tomorrow? Yes, but it's very unlikely. Much much more unlikely than.if I didn't have a gun with me.
You can never be certain, but at least they have a chance and their fate would be controlled by their own decisions.
Personally, in light of recent happenings I think it very irresponsible for teachers to not at least want the ability. Not just teachers but anybody who has a permit, parents, janitors, any faculty member.
Maybe none would, but the possibility that they might would be a deterrent all by itself.
Right NOW, only one thing is certain & that is that gun free zones simply dont work. I cant be certain that a gun would matter, but I am certain that its a disgrace to make sure those poor people are helpless.
Its worth noting that these things were almost unheard of for most of our history, as were gun free zones. I have a permit & one reason is to protect my family. But these people have taken that right away from me when I bring my children to school. Why? To ensure I'm a victim if I happen to be on scene?
Thats the question we NEED to ask, WHY are people responsible enough to carry everyplace else they go suddenly irresponsible when entering a school? Its absurd really.
"The group supports reinstating a ban on automatic weapons"
OK. Done. They have been banned for the last 80 years.
"reducing the number of clips allowed in magazines"
I have no idea what that means. Clips in magazines?
"and closing background check loopholes that allow nearly 40 percent of gun sales to take place without background checks"
Majority of the 40% sales are between family members and hunting buddies. But I agree that gun shows should do background checks on gun buyers.
They made that number up. Gun shows perform the same NICS check as stores do, the ONLY exception is private sales of rifles but that wont come near 40% of sales. Maybe 1or 2% Id guess.
The entire point is missed. This is like a farmer talking about putting up no wolf signs to protect his sheep instead of shooting the wolf.
Where did this number of 40% come from please show me the stats behind this? If the sale was not sent through the NICS check then how do you know the sale occured? A gun store has to perform a NICS check on a prosepctive buyer...it is the law.
Reducing the number of clips in a magazine? Who edited this article .
Why reduce down to 10 round why not 14 or 9 or 6 or 22.It is a arbitrary number.Do you think if Adam Lanza only had 10 rd magazines then somehow things may of worked out better...No it would not of.
Enforce the laws we have already.
Use common sense,if you have someone in your home that is mentally or emotionally unstable either remove the firerarms or lock them up.Mrs Lanza did neither.And while she was the first victim in this tragedy she bears some responsibility in this because she kept the firearms unsecured in her house with a person whom she knew had emotional and mental problems.
Do you know for a fact that Mrs. Lanza kept her guns unsecured? It could be the case that the guns were in fact secured, but her son managed to defeat the security measures. This would not absolve her of responsibility but it would have implications for others in situations similar to hers.
Iv heard they were in a closet. But closets can be locked. Thing is he killed her, I think it easy to coerce somebody into telling you where something is or how to get it under pain of death. I dont hold her even remotely responsible. CT failed her when she wanted help with her son and now she is dead and cant tell her story. I think it in poor taste to point fingers at her when its our fault as a society on so many levels.
It is a tragedy that she died, and yes society should certainly do more to support families contending with mental illness, but it's shocking that you feel Mrs. Lanza shouldn't be held "even remotely responsible".
Gun owners must be responsible for their guns, period. If you keep firearms in such a way that a mentally ill person or a criminal can access them, then you should be held responsible for the consequences that arise from that decision. This has nothing to do with pointing fingers and everything to do with learning from tragedy in hopes of not repeating it.
Its not shocking, If we are to learn anything from these things it should be that legislating away the right to self defense kills people.
I keep most of my guns locked up, but what good would it do me if I had to lock them all up? Do you supose somebody invading my home would be kind enough to let me go get one? As I said, I heard they were in a closet but nobody outside LE really knows yet. What we do know is another massacre occurred in another gun free zone. What we know is that for 220+ years we had no requirement to lock them up, no gun free zones & had very few massacres like this. about 20 years ago somebody invented the gun free zone and all hell broke loose.
My guns are locked up but I keep my Sig in a small bedside safe with quick access. I plan to upgrade my bedside safe with a fingerprint access type.
Where did this number of 40% come from please show me the stats behind this? If the sale was not sent through the NICS check then how do you know the sale occured? A gun store has to perform a NICS check on a prosepctive buyer...it is the law.
Reducing the number of clips in a magazine? Who edited this article .
Why reduce down to 10 round why not 14 or 9 or 6 or 22.It is a arbitrary number.Do you think if Adam Lanza only had 10 rd magazines then somehow things may of worked out better...No it would not of.
Enforce the laws we have already.
Use common sense,if you have someone in your home that is mentally or emotionally unstable either remove the firerarms or lock them up.Mrs Lanza did neither.And while she was the first victim in this tragedy she bears some responsibility in this because she kept the firearms unsecured in her house with a person whom she knew had emotional and mental problems.
The group supports "reducing the number of clips allowed in magazines". I'm not opposed to that. I tried putting a "clip" in my Ar-15 "magazine", and was not successful. How do you do that?
Just what we needed: another group of sappy, publicity-hungry women, crying and marching around to urge legislation against things they know nothing about, when they should stay home and clean the house.
I love that argument @MsDanbury. Shall we just abolish all laws, then since only law-abiding people follow them anyway?
And yes, a crazy man in China did get into a school and stab 18 children. The difference between that and Newtown? Those children are all still alive.
My point is, don't create new regulations when it was proven that the existing regulations just do no work. Show me a plan that is geared toward the real problem. The mentally sick. The average citizen will not do this type of thing. Take guns out of the picture and there will be another weapon.
The proof of the ignorance is the shear fact that the main target of regulation is the "assault rifle". The percentage of deaths from any rifle let alone the "assault rifle" is so small by comparison to deaths by shooting. The 10 year ban did nothing to lessen crimes. In fact the crimes went up.
All I have been hearing is talk about is gun control. These horrible tragedies always spark gun control. I hear all the plans to ban certain style guns and magazine capacities. Not once have I heard an explanation as to how this is going to prevent these horrible tragedies. All the regulations are directed to law abiding citizens who have no intentions to use these weapons to harm anyone. You mention reinstating the ban on automatic weapons, the ban has never been lifted. Automatic weapons are currently banned.
I am all for more intensive background checking and having these checks include mental history.
My challenge is to have someone explain how all the bans an regulations will stop these horrible events. How will laws stop criminals from committing crimes?
@Loveithere: One's rights are not to be abridged before any abuse occurs. Your example of "...You are not allowed to incite violence or threaten the president..." cites an illegal act. You wouldn't muzzle a citizen who "might" threaten or incite before any abuse occurred. That is a "Bill of Attainder" and violates due process. Millions of law abiding citizens have the very weapons you demonize. You are proposing that they are to be coerced into surrendering those arms ex post facto, even though they have never committed any wrong.
Bravo to Kara for her efforts and not
Just giving lip service. We own several legal guns in our house, I am not anti-gun, but I so support the ban on so-called assault rifles and the distribution of high capacity magazines. And closing the many loopholes that exist in our laws.
I wish the gun zealots would realize noone is trying to take away their precious second ammendment rights. There isn't a "right" out there that doesn't have regulation. Freedom of speech!? You are not allowed to incite violence or threaten the president ..... Why do gun zealots think that the second ammendment should be any different? Yes, collectively there are 7.000 laws regulating guns, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be 7,010. As our society evolves, so should our laws.
Lastly, google Jon Stewart's two part commentary on this issue. He sums it up more brilliantly than anyone I have heard.
If you think someone like Jon Stewart (who barely knows which end of a gun the bullet exits) is someone to listen to for rational arguments, that's not a good sign.
The so called 'loopholes' aren't really the big deals the anti-gun rights groups make them out to be. There is no such thing as a gun show loophole as the same laws apply there as at a firearms dealer's store. CT requires that private handgun transfers receive an authorization between two permitted individuals. No loophole.
Some discussion on magazine sizes:
http://darien.patch.com/blog_posts/gun-violence-magazine-capacity-part-one
No right has ANY prior restraints or limits like RKBA. There are over 20,000 gun laws.
Others have restrictions but none come into play until you abuse the right. The limits you talk about, like inciting violence or threatening are more like a law against useing a gun in a crime, thats already illegal. There atre no laws saying you cannot speak in a theater, or at a gathering, its only if you do something wrong. Simply owning an AR isnt wrong, it hurts no one.
You need to ask why the control freaks think the 2nd amendment is different, not why WE think it is. I think its the same & I think barring guns from schools is very similar to barring a specific religion or race from schools. Only worse because people die due to this specific discrimination. Gun control is NOTHING but lip service.
The left's "leadership" would absolutely abolish the 2nd if they could. Think you're naive on that one. Most democrats do not want to abolish the 2nd. That they don't know the intentions of their "leadership" is why they're called "sheeple".
And you're correct that rights can and do come with regulation. Just like the 2nd. The 'evolution' may be the problem. Disregard for the value of life is paying dividends in the form of violence. Decades of at will abortion, Hollywood desensitization of gun violence, video game culture in which you can kill, crash or fail without consequence, nanny state in which risk is managed by someone else, etc all leads to a society that is eroding at its core and unwilling to be responsible for its own actions. Sure, we're 'evolving'' but perhaps, as a self governing nation, we should examine if we are evolving in the right direction.
Work on the root cause....and that cause is not 'too much freedom for law abiding citizens.'
Instead of marching in Hartford, why Ms. Baekey work to improve violence in her own city? March through Roodner Court or Colonial Village demanding gun control, particularly of blatantly illegal guns, and background checks. Take the problem to the real source instead of posturing to politicians.
The horrendous abuse that occurred in Newtown does not authorize the spreading of falsehoods, disinformation, and propaganda.
The claim that " 40 percent of gun sales to take place without background checks" comes, not from actual sales figures, but from a tiny survey sample of 251 people conducted twenty years ago. Most of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks in early 1994.
The propaganda techniques in play here include: "assertion", "appeal to authority", and most sinister-"the Big Lie." In other words..."What I say is true because I say so and if I repeat it loud enough and often enough, it becomes MORE true."
A more interesting fact is that despite exponential growth in gun ownership, gun deaths are at their lowest since the early 1990s. Further, of those reduced gun deaths, those resulting from the use of ALL rifles, stands at .012%. That means that more than 3X as many deaths result from falling off ladders as are caused by rifles. Yet, no one is calling for a ban on ladders, limiting homeowners to ladders with less than 7 rungs, requiring permits for step ladders , and banning extension ladders outright. Why? Because such clamor would be seen for what it is...foolish, emotional demogoguery.
Finally, while there is no constitutional right to ascend a ladder, the right to protect one's life and property are prominent in the Bill of Rights. We do not hear calls to silence those who misuse their first amendment rights to echo false and malicious lies that tread upon the rights of others. Should liars be banned from blogging or marching in the street? After all they don't NEED to
promulgate misleading half-truths on the internet. Perhaps if they had to register with the government, take a course in the correct exposition of logic, and were limited to using only quill pens, ONLY TRUTH would be heard.
The propaganda techniques in play here include: "assertion", "appeal to authority", and most sinister-"the Big Lie." In other words..."What I say is true because I say so and if I repeat it loud enough and often enough, it becomes MORE true."
And then you proceed to communicate "interesting facts" with percentages and ladders as though this were the gospel truth. Why? Because you said so! Not good enough. If you are going to accuse the "left" of "the Big Lie", do not excuse yourself from the same. Cite legitimate references and, please, stick to gun control and stay out of the ladder business. These analogies do absolutely nothing to elucidate the problem with guns.
Great response, Queequeg, with the exception of one word in the first sentence. You said "The horrendous abuse", it wasn't abuse. It was a major crime. The shooter broke more than 40 laws, including 27 counts of murder in the first degree.
I'm pointing it out not to quibble, but because so many people are blaming the NRA, licensed firearm owners, CCW holders, firearm manufacturers, firearm dealers and just about anyone else they can pin the blame on. However, none of the above had anything to do with the massive crime spree in Newtown. Since the shooter's dead, the rest of us are being held responsible, which is wrong. One person and one person alone is responsible. It's important to remember that and for people to stop trying to punish and vilify other innocent people.
Tim T -
Your caring, compassionate side is clearly showing . Revenge against innocent people is not the answer.
Nancy Lanza committed NO crime. She was a victim just as much as any of the children or school administrators. She was an individual who had a chronically ill child that went on a major murder spree. He is also now dead. Get a grip.
So basically anyone who disagrees with you is a wacko. That's a great position to begin with & you simply attack everyone you disagree with.
1) The NRA didn't bully politicians, CT has an assault weapons ban & is listed by gun control groups as #5 strictest gun laws in the nation.
2) Its tough for someone to prevent a crime after being murdered. Do you really believe a mother would help her son learn a skill if she thought he was dangerous?
3) Firearms manufacturers make legal products that allow people to protect themselves. In fact, firearms are used 3-4x as often in self defense than they are to commit crime. (See study by criminologist Gary Kleck).