1. "We're working with trainers to bring better and more consistent training....like to see more and better training...to go far beyond basic requirements...."
REALLY? Where is the evidence that gun owners are so ignorant and irresponsible that training is an issue that needs to be addressed by a RIGHTS organization?
I am sorry if you do not agree that more and better training opportunities in our state is a good thing for everyone. We absolutely believe in offering choices and expanding training in our state. Your questions above are mostly strawmen since we have not indicated anything of the sort, so I don't see the need to respond to them individually.
2. (Background Checks) "...don't disagree with this in most regards." (Beefing up and streamlining background checks): "Absolutely..."
REALLY?
You don't believe in streamlining background checks? We do. We have a very ridiculous process here and anything we can do to clear that process up is a win for all.
And yes, I absolutely believe in background checks. I just don't believe in background checks only for firearms or being done by the government at all. And I certainly don't believe in mandatory-government-enforced background checks.
That is why we issued the release on background checks that we did.
http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/e38fed38-8862-4963-a5dd-eb1e5c68b955
That is also why we offer access to our state database.
http://ctcarry.com/ConvictionHistory/StateSearch
3. (there is "no psychological model as part of the background checks) "...a great topic of discussion for our legislators."
REALLY? Be careful what you wish for!
No worries. That is not something that will ever fly. Best to let our legislators toil with something that the ACLU will spend their millions on. Don't mistake redirection for endorsement.
4. "There is no solution to what happened at Newtown."
While I concede that criminals and evil people will always try to do what they do, I think an opportunity was missed here to suggest that the best defense is ANY defense, i.e., removing schools from the list of mandated "disarmed victim zones" and let all citizens who already have the trust and confidence of the state to have been issued a carry permit, not have to disarm at the schoolhouse door.
We have mentioned this many times and it was discussed. The interviewer is actually a professor at Quinnipiac and we talked at length about this since he supports the removal of the GFSZ model, but himself does not think that he is capable or responsible enough to be armed in a classroom. Luckily, in Connecticut we already have provisions for faculty in schools and colleges to be armed. While it would be great to push for permit holders to have no restrictions on this as well, these deals are not won in a single interview or session.
Not everything makes it into taped interviews. People who don't do this kind of thing on a regular basis rarely understand how difficult it is to get good sound bites into the record. Overall, I am pretty happy about what made it into this interview and how it was framed.
We build media relationships. That is why we get our time to talk and why others do not. Spending our time screaming "Shall not be infringed" and ranting about SCOTUS rulings is what
some people do, but it is not always the most effective method when considering context and audience.
Some people are effective. Some are not. Guess which ones.