Friday, September 7, 2012

Connecticut Gun Owners Acting Badly

Matthew L. Renzullo was charged with illegal discharge of a firearm, second-degree breach of peace, carrying a dangerous weapon, conspiracy to commit first-degree reckless endangerment and second-degree false statement after allegedly lying to Torrington Police about his involvement with firing a gun early Thursday morning.

Renzullo, 23, told police he had met up with his friend, the two men started drinking and playing cards. Renzullo’s accomplice, later identified as 23-year-old Roger Hunt of Douglas, Mass., reportedly had a 9 mm Ruger pistol in his apartment, which he told police seemed enticing to Renzullo.

The two men walked outside the apartment and down the street, where Renzullo looked at Hunt and said, “What do you think of this n---er?”, then fired off “four or five rounds,” according to police. According to Hunt, he and Renzullo — both white males — devised a plan that “if the cops showed up, we’d blame it on two Puerto Ricans.”

Renzullo told police he wouldn’t have fired the weapon if he hadn’t been drinking.

Police charged Hunt, who lied to authorities about his identity, with carrying a firearm while intoxicated, conspiracy to commit first-degree reckless endangerment and conspiracy to commit unlawful discharge of a firearm.
You know, to hear the gun-rights folks tell it, you'd think that racism was a thing of the past.They never tire of insisting that they and their gun owning friends are not racists. Everyone knows that's just not true, as this story illustrates.

Another thing they insist upon is that guys who drink too much and do stupid shit with guns are so rare that we could just write them off as anomalies. That's another misrepresentation which this story highlights.

Gun owners are just like everybody else.  They suffer from all the ills that people in general suffer from.  That's why we need stricter gun control laws.  That's why it's a mistake to treat gun ownership like a right that everyone is entitled to. 

People should have to be highly qualified to own guns.  Infractions should be treated very seriously. 

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. Nice job on stereotyping all gun owners as racists. You are unbelievable Mike. Get off of your high horse and step back in the real world.

    1. Nice job of misrepresenting what I said. Racism against blacks and Hispanics is extremely prevalent among white people. I never said ALL.

    2. What do you think "extremely prevalent" means? Put a number to that. Does it mean three quarters? Ninety percent? The term has to mean much more than a simple majority. But yes, you imply that we're mostly bad people, and you wonder why we refuse to cooperate with you.

    3. Mike, you are operating under the premise that only whites are racisists. You are totally wrong! The racisim exists in all races, and yes, a lot of racist views are held towards whites from blacks, hispanics, orientals and so on. Even white on white racisim exists.

      People like you promote racisim, the Obama's, the Jackson's, the Calderon's and so on absolutely harbor and promote racisim against whites. The continous promotion of racisim for there political gains is the reason it wont die. It could if we rid ourselves of these promoters of hate. I have plenty of white and hispanic friends that feel exactly the same way.

    4. And plenty of my black friends and family feel the same way too. You want to end racisim, stop the promoters of this kind of hate. This means you too Mike.
      You have the choice Mike, work on stopping this, or promote it. Your blame game and reporting style does nothing to stop it, it only promotes it.

    5. I agree with you it's not limited to whites.

      When I talk about it, or any other negative aspect of gun owners, I realize it doesn't apply to all. I never imply that it does.

      But, you guys on the other hand in denying these things pretend they don't exist or that the numbers are negligible.

    6. Mike, I never have implied that they dont exist. Of course it does. But your implication that the numbers are higher than they are is the problem. One story does not make a majority. It makes one story out millions of other stories that have nothing to do with any of this. These kinds of stories are always on top of reporting, but buried are all the reports of misdeeds that have nothing to do with guns unless its a slow news day.

      I am reading news of killings that have nothing to do with a gun right now. Of all of these news reports, there is one gun crime against 563 killings that happend in one day. One gun crime, one. Of course this report is not nation wide, but you get the idea.

      It shows me and should show you that guns are not the problem. Its the people that are determined to commit that crime. Out of this report there are 119 that a considered a race crime. Out of that there are 22 white against other, 56 black on white crime, 39 hispanic on white and 2 black on black. No guns are involved. Beat to death by hand, bat or other objects including a few cars used to assault their victims.

      Mike, anyone can search news stories for anything. Continually posting just one kind doesnt solve anything. We all know it happens, no one will deny that. And even still, gets you nowhere.

      Even posting from the UK about a story of a home defender with a proud Laci response. Well even the UK is activly changing their position of self defense. Which by the way, has nothing to do with ones race.

      I had asked if you wanted a conversation, you said we are having one. Then accuse me of trying to control an arguement with facts. Which is it, a discussion or an arguement.

    7. There is racism among minorities, sometimes referred to as reverse racism.

      The distinction is that it is not whites against whom discrimination is institutionalized. It is not whites who for example are for the most part being disenfranchised or wrongly removed from voter roles. It is not whites who are profiled either.

      So the whole power thing makes the difference, the whole who is targeted and penalized is where the distinction lies. Blaming Obama or Jackson or anyone else for racism is wrong, it is stupid, it is a misrepresentation of what they do. The push back against the kind of racism that actually acts to harm people - like the FDA discrimination against black farmers that cost them their job, like profiling, like putting a vastly disproportionate number of people behind bars. There is no indication that black people do more drugs or smoke more pop than white people; there is an indication that slightly MORE white people are involved with pot and other drugs than minorities - it's an availability thing based on greater affluence.
      Yet in the 90% range of people in jail for that are black. Ditto those who get the death sentence in states like TX. Those are REAL results of racism. Show me where whites actually SUFFER in a significant way as result of racism by minorities and we have a place from which to hold a discussion. Until then - and it will be a long wait - we don't.

    8. So I guess the new black panthers didn't really have anything to do with disenfranchising the white voters. Nor does an all black college. Or all black entertainment channel. Or miss black America.

      Come on DG, whites are disenfranchised ALL THE TIME! You absolutely can not have a all white anything in this country or your a racist. You have little Mexico community's, different oriental places, little Italy, and all black places that the whites are simply not allowed to be. But no such thing as all white or its your ass.

      The whites in this country are discriminated against the most in this country than any other race in benefits, they can't get them but handed out on a silver platter to illegals and the so called minorities.

      Here is the thing DG, this is the very thing that keeps racisim alive in this country and its done in the name of my race by the insinuation of my race being a disenfranchised minority.

      I refuse to live this way DG, its wrong. No white man alive owes me not one damn thing. And if anything now, this country needs to stop this nonsense and move on as equals that we are.

      So take your long winded explanation and stuff it, your one of the reasons racisim still exists.

    9. Dog Gone, how is any of that relevant to this discussion? We have here a couple of knuckleheads. They deserve to spend a state-sponsored vacation to reform their ways, presuming that such a thing is possible. But unless you're proposing that we should have to pass a racial preferences test to own a gun, there's nothing more to say. Such a test would be a grotesque violation of our rights, of course, but that's never stopped you before.

  2. "Gun owners are just like everybody else."

    What? You mean we're the same slice of the population as non gun owners?

    Kinda looks like it. Here's a story about a non gun owner that's racists.

    "That's why we need stricter gun control laws."

    I'm surprised you didn't post about this gun owner behaving badly. He's from New York and you know how hard it is to legally owner a gun in NYC. Perhaps if NYC had more stricterer gun laws, Mr. Athanasatos would not have shot his brother in the eye.

    1. Gosh B3 - can you show us that the gun was obtained in NY?

      Because an awful lot of them aren't that are used and abused like this.

    2. Dog Gone, did you miss the part about how the gun was homemade? Said fact is so hard to find, as it's in the title of the article...

    3. Gosh DG - seems like you put your foot in your mouth, again.

  3. These two idiots deserve to spend some time behind bars. They did wrong. However, I don't know them. I don't spend time with anyone like them. I'm not like them.

    What is more important, by your line of "reasoning," we should control all rights. People say racist things, so why do we allow everyone to enjoy free expression? People do stupid things while drunk, so why do we allow alcohol?

    My answer to all of those questions is that a free society is better than a controlled society.

    1. These two idiots deserve to lose any access to guns for the rest of their lives.

      Mike is right - these are two fools who lack the necessary judgment to own a gun in the first place - and shouldn't have had them. This is not what anyone had in mind with the 2nd amendment.

      ALL of this costs society, and provides nothing of value in return; it represents the continuing epic fail of the gun culture.

    2. Once again, Dog Gone shows us that she believes in the Department of Pre-crimes. She's able to see into the future and know who will do bad acts. The rest of us understand that this is fantasy, not reality, and if it were true, it would be real only in a totalitarian society.

      But Dog Gone, you say that guns provide nothing of value? You love studies. Have you missed the various ones that show the number of defensive gun uses to be at least in the hundreds of thousands per annum? I realize that you have no appreciation for the value to be found in a free society that recognizes the right of its citizens to own property and to make choices--values aren't subject to scientific analysis, after all. But the defensive benefits of firearms are available for anyone who looks into the question.

  4. So MikeB. Please tell us, in simple terms, your idea of the social contract. As you describe your idea, please explain your position on a person's right to life, liberty, and property.

    This may seem somewhat tangential to your arguments for this post. I assure you that your response will be anything but tangential.

    1. Oh, the social contract, in what, 100 words? A subject that has been covered in PhD theses and huge volumes of philosophy?

      Or, should I just BRIEFLY tell you about life, liberty and property.

      If you have a specific question, ask it.

    2. Please agree completely or state your differences with this summary.

      The social contract says that everyone has fundamental rights and everyone must uphold everyone's fundamental rights as they interact, collaborate, and go about their lives. Thus people can specialize (leading to huge gains in skills, efficiency, and productivity) and face perils in life together. The fundamental rights that everyone must respect in the social contract are life, liberty, and property. If someone violates the social contract, they face sanctions, punishment, and/or banishment from the rest of society.

      Here is a basic explanation of the rights. Everyone has a right to:
      Life -- be alive and well.
      Liberty -- do anything as long as it does NOT infringe on another person's rights.
      Property -- make or buy anything and keep it.

      So pretty much anything goes as long as we do not harm, attack, kidnap, imprison, or steal from fellow citizens.

    3. That sounds fine. In fact that is a very succinct and workable definition.

      Where we disagree is when you build upon that and tell me you have a right to own a particular inanimate object.

      In fact to do so, violates the very social contract you so nicely put forth. The gun violence we have in The States is directly related to the availability of firearms.

      Serious restrictions on guns and higher qualifications for gun ownership is the best way to maintain the social contract, not the opposite.

    4. The mere existence or possession of a piece of property violates nothing. It's how that object is used. I see no one here arguing that it's our right to commit murder. Speaking generally, prohibition of a thing is a violation of liberty.

    5. Mikeb said, "Where we disagree is when you build upon that and tell me you have a right to own a particular inanimate object."

      I do not build upon anything. I simply stated that a citizen can make or buy anything ... which includes jewelry, belts, and even firearms (gasp!). There is no provision in the social contract for any person or entity to tell another person what they can or cannot make or buy. To do so violates their property rights.

      Mikeb also said, "Serious restrictions on guns and higher qualifications for gun ownership is the best way to maintain the social contract ..."

      You want government, through laws and force of police violence, to tell people what property they can own, if/where they can possess it, and whether or not they can use it in defense of their lives. That scenario shreds all three fundamental rights -- property, liberty, and life -- of the social contract. That in no way, shape, or form maintains the social contract.

      And you wonder why so many people are up in arms?!?!?! (pun intended)