Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: CPTV and NPR radio will host a Live Panel Discussion with call-in 8 - 9pm December 20

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    CPTV and NPR radio will host a Live Panel Discussion with call-in 8 - 9pm December 20

    This is a notice to everyone that Connecticut Public Television (CPTV) and NPR radio will be hosting a live one hour panel discussion on guns in America.There will be live calls from viewers.More information will be provided as it is received.

  2. #2
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    good to hear! hopefully they don't screen the calls and only allow anti-gunners to get through like what often happens in call-ins with heavily opposing sides.
    should be interesting, considering it's ONLY 1 hour. I think it'll take a good amount more than 1 hour to hear enough voices to form a basis on the general public's opinion.

    I will definitely be attempting to call in

    *there is nothing about this in their schedule yet on their website, at least not that I can find.
    Last edited by motoxmann; 12-17-2012 at 07:16 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,199
    I am a regular caller to Wis public radio.

    I have promoted the pro gun idea dozens of time over the last 25 years or so.

    Heres a couple of tips.

    Find the phone number of the show have it handy. As soon as they say they well be taking callers, call don't wait the phone lines fill ip early.

    Be perpared to be on hold for some time.

    Local shows are the best and easiest to get in on national shows are very hard to get on.

    Be calm have your main point written down so you don't forget it.

    Most of the time you will only get to make one good soild point you will not get to go on and on.

    some times if it is slow you will be able to get a follow up in not very offten.

    Expect to be cut off after your main point.

    Even if the quest is lieing thru his teeth don't call him a lier or call him names you will get cut off and look bad.

    Just give the facts and let them speak for themselves.

    If you have personl expertise you can lead with that. Most of the time when dealing with anti gunners I lead with that I am a retired LEO with decades of experience and a firearms trainer.

    The host normally like to hear from people who have experiance in the subject they are talking about.

    Even then because I am pro 2nd ,pro selfdefense and don't meet their idea of an anti gun LEO I normmely only get to make one point.

    Do not be afraid to call paractice makes perfect even if you don't get on the air you have tied up a line that a anti could have used.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    CPTV WNPR Panel members for Thursday night 8 - 9 pm


    Invitations were sent out with a Thursday RSVP deadline at noon.


     
    Be a part of the discussion.
    Join our studio audience for a live town meeting

    THURSDAY at 8 p.m.
    ON CPTV and WNPR

    www.CPBN.org
    Guns: A Town Meeting

    CPTV and WNPR will hold a town meeting to explore the use of guns in our community, what they represent, and why so many
    people want them.

    Moderator John Dankosky explores these issues during a live call-in program Thursday, Dec. 20 at the Chase Family Studio of CPTV from 8 to 9 p.m.


    Please RSVP by noon, Dec. 20.

    Townmeeting@cptv.org or 860.275.7335.

    Seating is limited. Audience members must arrive by 7:15 PM to ensure studio seating.


    Live simulcast begins at 8 p.m.
    .
    Directions: www.cpbn.org/directions-our-hartford-studios
    -------- Original Message --------
    Subject: guests
    From: "Boyd, Jennifer" <
    jboyd@cptv.org>
    Date: Tue, December 18, 2012 2:51 pm
    To: <
    edperuta@amcable.tv>


    Patricia A. Ciccone

    Superintendent

    CT Technical High School System



    Robert Crook

    Executive Director

    Coalition of CT Sportsmen



    Senator Richard Blumenthal

    (D)Connecticut



    Ed Peruta

    Director

    Connecticut Carry



    Richard Slotkin

    Olin Professor of American Studies Emeritus

    Wesleyan University



    Mayor Pedro Segarra

    (D)Hartford



    Jennifer Boyd

    Executive Producer

    Connecticut Public Television

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...o-guns/306748/


    Looks like the Professor may recognize that many gun control laws have their roots in trying to control the black population .. it certainly did in Chicago in the 1970s & 1980s .. politicians freely even spoke of this aspect of gun control .. Jim Crow laws were clearly attempts to keep the black population from owning guns ..

    Why the black population still supports these laws is a mystery to me but it concerns me. I don't agree with everything he wrote ... and he does not compare current levels of gun ownership to past history...perhaps he can't due to cost differences between the periods but it seems like a large % of people in this country always have owned guns...too large to simply dismiss the numbers as the author seems to attempt to do in this article.





    Article by Slotkin....some quotes from the webpage..


    (Colt is said to have conceived the repeating pistol to enable a single white man to defend himself against an unruly gang of slaves.)



    From 1776 through the Age of Jackson....
    But free blacks were still denied the right to serve in the militia, even in Massachusetts and other anti-slavery states


    In the Jim Crow era whites who murdered blacks for such offenses as refusing to step aside in the street and looking at a white woman were typically let off by white juries. "The courts granted virtual immunity to whites accused of crimes against black men,"


    The abolition of slavery and the attempt to reconstruct the South as a multiracial society produced some of the worst violence—Ku Klux Klan terrorism, race riots, and bloody strikes, culminating in the establishment of the Jim Crow regime in the South.


    The largest vigilance movements were those mounted by the KKK and similar organizations during Reconstruction


    The terrorism associated with white-supremacist organizations such as Aryan Nations, WAR, Christian Identity, World Church of the Creator, the Phineas Priesthood, and The Order is framed by its exponents as a form of political struggle, analogous to the revolutionary terrorism of the IRA and the Basque ETA. Some of these groups do have roots in political organizations—including the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party.


    What makes the difference is not just the availability of weapons but the ethic, rooted in our cultural history, that teaches the people how, when, and on whom violence may be used.

  6. #6
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    they really should have told the one caller that made it through to mute his TV.

    but anyway, I tried calling in for the entirety of the show to no avail, with 1 specific point I wanted to make, complemented by a 2nd point. as as I watched the entire show, everyone made comments about it, with opposing views. but any logical person can consider both sides and know they are all reasons to agree with the following, my point (I'm expanding greatly here in the thread, it would have been short and sweet on the phone):

    limiting the capacity of magazines to 10: criminals will still always have higher capacity magazines and/or multiple weapons and/or multiple magazines ready to go and accessible quickly. criminals often act in numbers [when referencing the more common types of violent crime]. creating a law that restricts law abiding citizens to 10-rounds max per magazine (no matter what type of weapon is in question) is absurd! As mentioned on the show, in the case of home invasions; often times it is multiple intruders working together, and typically they all have guns. And also bringing up the point of training and accuracy in a high stress event like a homeowner possessing a gun for self defense while his home is broken into by gun-toting criminals. Law abiding citizens should have as much firepower available to them as possible! statistics and common knowledge show time and time again that 1 handgun round or even 2 handgun rounds will rarely stop an intruder, and thats only considering the rounds that actually hit the target (the intruder). add the factor of accuracy during an event like this. If 3 men break into a home with guns, a homeowner with only 10 rounds only has 3 bullets per intruder and 1 extra. The chances of every round fired by the citizen hitting their intended target are slim to none. Theoretical guess of 33% of the bullets fired landing on their target, that means each of the 3 intruders will only get hit once. That probably will NOT stop the intrusion, it will just piss off the intruders and make them act even more violently, more likely to kill the citizen or one of their family members. a higher capacity magazine in the hands of the citizen will highly increase the chances of the intruders being stopped.
    when in a situation like this, there's no time to aim perfectly, only time to decide and react. and knowing accuracy is the lowest possibility, increasing the number of rounds fired by the law abiding citizen defending whatever he's defending will highly increase the chance of the intruders being stopped before they can cause further harm.

    the concept of "lethality" being in question? thats even dumber! If a criminal threatens to kill me or attempts to kill me, he may or may not actually have initial intentions of doing so. but if he has something highly capable of lethality, I definitely don't want to just injure him while leaving him still mostly or fully functional but now in a rage against me, and I definitely don't want him to be capable of escaping and attempting the same crime against someone less capable of defending themself. armed citizens have every right of having the MOST LETHAL weapons of self defense possible, capable of stopping the criminal as quickly as possible, and preventing that criminal from ever committing an act of extreme violence against anyone else. and a positive side effect; a dead murderer (or potential murderer) will not be occupying jail space and using up taxpayers' money. and another side effect; the weapon originally possessed by the criminal will not make it into the hands of another criminal, it will be seized by law enforcement; 1 more illegal gun off the streets.

    ^which circles back to high powered high capacity semi-automatic rifles. a weapon of this type will stop a criminal MUCH faster than a handgun, assuming the shots are accurately placed, which then also circles back to magazine capacity and the obvious concept of the law abiding citizen wanting the best chances possible of stopping the criminal[s] before the criminal[s] stop/kill/maim/injure the law abiding citizen and/or any friends or family members or other innocent people.

    as stated repeatedly during the show; accessibility to guns is the issue. guns themselves are NOT the issue, only the accessibility by criminals. restricting what weapons law abiding citizens can possess, and/or restricting magazine capacity, will have ZERO effect on reducing crime. focus NEEDS to be turned AWAY FROM laws applying to law abiding citizens, and aimed more directly at the CRIMINALS who would use guns, and also aimed at factors that make ANY type of gun accessible to a criminal.
    limiting magazine capacity, and limiting what characteristics a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen can have, will have little to no effect on crime, it will only leave the law abiding citizen less capable of proper defense. how to address the accessibility by criminals factor? I don't know for certain, but I do have ideas that are MUCH MORE REASONABLE than restricting magazines and weapon types. storage laws come to mind. Enforcement of storage laws would be near impossible, but think about what is being referenced in this entire national idea: criminals and law abiding citizens. criminals don't follow laws, duuuh, that's specifically what makes them criminals. restricting weapons will have zero effect on criminal activity. but encorporating storage laws... law abiding citizens are called just that because they DO follow laws. if only ONE law were passed; a law regarding storage of firearms, we would follow it in high percentages, DRASTICALLY reducing the accessibility of firearms to criminals. which very specifically I personally think would have the highest effect on the overall issue, over any other possible law or combination of laws. and it covers every aspect of gun violence; handgun, shotgun, rifle, ammo, pre-planned or spontaneous, local or distant, etc etc: it prevents the criminals from getting the guns before anything can even occur

    think about it: if adam lanza's mother had a fixed lockable container of some sort for her weapons; she would still be alive and adam would not have been capable of taking her firearms; gun massacre averted.

    some may like this idea, some might not. but it is the most reasonable idea I've heard yet, but problem being I haven't heard anyone mention it anywhere yet. specifically: make it federal law that a weapon can not be left in a vehicle unless someone legally authorised to possess said weapon is in the vehicle. if said person must leave the vehicle for any period of time, make a maximum time limit, and make some form of list of security measure[s] that must be encorporated to secure the weapon in the vehicle. IE: any weapon left in an unattended vehicle must not be left unattended for more than 20 minutes, and must have some form of lock attached deeming the weapon non-functional while said lock is in place, AND a second form of lock securely attaching the weapon to the vehicle itsself (ie: a trigger lock and a cable lock). and for storage at home: any weapon left in a home while noone legally authorised to possess said weapon[s] is currently in the home must be stored in a locked container permanently affixed to a structural part of the home, only accessible by those legally authorised to individually posses/carry said weapon[s]. IE: any type of gun safe composed of metal bolted to a wall or floor.

    if every legal gun owner followed this above policy, it would be near impossible for criminals to get their hands on guns. then the only remaining problem would be the one that no law could ever solve: the illegal guns currently on the street. but that number would drop more and more over time, as criminals commit crimes and either get caught by LEO's or get shot/stopped by a law abiding citizen

    is a federal law requiring specific storage traits out of line? some may think so. but no matter what anyone thinks, I'm sure everyone could agree that a storage law is MUCH more reasonable than a set of laws imposing major restrictions on weapons/ammo themselves
    Last edited by motoxmann; 12-20-2012 at 11:00 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    I would like to thank the organizer's of the panel for inviting Connecticut Carry. It is important that the good citizens of this state have good representation in such matters.

    I would also like to extend a big thanks to Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta. Ed continues to prove himself to be a great asset to us in Connecticut and his many, many years of experience sure showed in this debate.

    Bob Crook did a fantastic job as well up there. I think between our two organizations we really held our own in an anti gun room.

    And as always, I would like to thank our members and supporters who make any of this possible. We have seen a groundswell of support in the last week or so, and we really appreciate it. We will not back down or let you guys down. Their attack may be in motion, but we are just getting started. The difference will be that we are honest and our arguments are based on solid logic and fact. That will be our advantage.

    More to come as it happens...
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  8. #8
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    also to continue my legit and reasonable rant:

    ammo: ANYTHING in legislature that passes in regards to ammo will largely affect law abiding citizens, and will have very very little impact on criminal activity. the largest things being discussed relating to ammo is volume allowed to be purchased at one time, and even more importantly the cost of ammo, whether it be the actual cost, or additional taxation on ammo. I've seen several sources mentioning a 50% tax rate on ammo???? oh heeeeeeeck no! all that will accomplish is law abiding citizens buying less ammo because they can't afford it. specifically referring to visiting the range for practice MUCH less often. citizens will still purchase ammo for self defense no matter the cost, but the volume purchased for defense purposes is very little compared to the volume of ammo purchased for use for practice and training. basically saying this: increasing ammo costs will have only ONE effect: law abiding citizens will have much less practice with their weapons, making them much less capable of safe self defense, and much more prone to accidents and stray bullets and other problematic issues related to inexperience.

    and back to magazine capacity: forgot to mention this earlier; I personally purchased 1 specific handgun SPECIFICALLY for it's higher capacity. because as the safety officer stated, only LEO's and the like receive proper training regularly to maintain the capability of accuracy in a high-stress environment. I visit the range often to hone my skills and keep them. I have become a very accurate shooter, and I am very confident in those skills [given the correct circumstances]. I have gone through hundreds and hundreds of rounds of ammo in the effort of improving those skills, something I would not have been capable of if the cost of ammo were higher than it is currently. but back to capacity; as accurate of a shooter as I am, I still know I've never been in a high stress environment while shooting, let alone the fact that I've definitely never shot at or near another human being. and if I ever were forced to do so, I"m sure my accuracy would go quite astray. my practice I'm sure would make it much better than if I hadn't practiced as much as I do, but still not enough to know 10 rounds will always be enough as I do admit I have no expert level of real world experience in self defense utilizing a gun. I want as many rounds in my gun as possible to ensure I personally have the capacity of thwarting any violent threat, whatever it may be (legally of course).

    to state examples: if i were to be mugged at knifepoint by 1 single person; yes I'm sure 10 rounds would be enough. but honestly, thats about the ONLY situation where I'm sure 10 rounds would be enough. if I were to be mugged by any amount of people more than 1, with any combination of weapons, 10 rounds is almost definitely not enough.
    home invasion by more than 1 person, 10 rounds definitely not enough.
    if I'm in a bank and 3 men run in with machine guns? 10 rounds is definitely not enough
    1 single person committing ANY violent crime while wearing a bulletproof vest? 10 rounds is DEFINITELY not enough, as the take-down zone of this type of criminal is limited to the head and neck, and/or multiple severe injuries to their arms and legs, all of which are much more difficult to accurately hit especially in a high stress situation that it would be.
    any number of violent criminals more than 1 wearing a bulletproof vest, well, heh, I'm probably dead either way. but I will expend every round I can get ahold of in an effort to save the lives of the other innocent people around me. and every additional round I could have could potentially mean that many more innocent lives I could save.

    If it were possible to carry 30 rounds in my handgun in a single clip without increasing the size or weight, I would do just that, at all times. but thats not even remotely feasible.
    Last edited by motoxmann; 12-21-2012 at 02:08 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    afterthought relating to everything I've mentioned above: just to be clear; I don't WANT to kill (or maim or injure, or shoot in any form) ANYone. I do however want to stop an attacker seriously threatening or intending to cause great bodily harm or death to myself or any of my loved ones or any other innocent people as quickly as possible, ideally; immediately. and logically and sensibly speaking the best way to possibly do that is to stop them dead in their tracks, metaphorically and literally

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    How does CPTV and WNPR view the show

    I was told last night that CPTV and WNPR rate the show by the number of emails and calls they receive afterwards.

    So if you think there should be more panel discussions, let them know.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    afterthought relating to everything I've mentioned above: just to be clear; I don't WANT to kill (or maim or injure, or shoot in any form) ANYone.
    Like the judge in Caddyshack...."I didn't want to send him to the gas chamber but I felt I owed it to him"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •