For a video clip of this discussion, please click here.
Moderator Kay Maxwell: Alright, next question. And, Ms. Farrell your turn to respond first. What is your position on the need for stricter gun control laws?
Diane Farrell: Well, I suspect you’re going hear Phil may be critical of me and my Republican friend here. There’s no question that we need to do more when it comes to gun control. It is absolutely tragic to read about the number of deaths, accidental deaths, deaths involved with violence in the urban centers, and this administration, and frankly Chris’s leadership, are so closely tied with the National Rifle Association that if anyone in this room was serious about seeing gun control legislation move forward in the next Congress, that alone should be a reason for voting for me, because Chris is gonna cast his vote for the same leadership that we have right now, and Dennis Hastert as Speaker of the House and majority leader have a perfect 100 record from the National Rifle Association. How many people think we’re gonna see more gun control legislation come through a Congress with leadership that had a 100 percent rating from the National Rifle Association?
Moderator: Mr. Shays?
Christopher Shays: Did you hear any solution? Did you hear any proposal? I’m gonna just keep saying it. No, just to elect new leadership. We need to require child safety locks on all handguns, close the gun show loophole, hold parents criminally liable if they allow children’s access to guns, to any adult that allows a child access to a gun, extend the ban on juvenile possession of handguns to include semi-automatics, impose a lifetime ban on gun ownership for juveniles who commit violent crimes, reinstate a three-day waiting period on handgun purchase, and large capacity ammunition magazines. That’s what I think you need to do. When we passed the assault weapons ban a few years ago, it passed by one vote. I was the lead Republican who helped get it passed.
Moderator: Mr. Maymin?
Phil Maymin: If you think that my opponents disagree with each other about this issue, you’re wrong. They agree virtually completely. The NRA gave my Republican opponent an F. Probably would have given her an F as well. They both want to control your right to protect yourself. Approximately two million murders, rapes, and assaults are prevented each year because of the use or threatened use of guns by the potential victim. The fact that we allow guns, the fact that people can have guns, results in less crime. If you look across states that allow more concealed carry laws, that allow guns to be held by people who own them, there is less crime. Because criminals are not stupid. If they see a neighborhood where people have a lot of guns, and a neighborhood where people have no guns, which one do you think they’ll rob? Now, not only is it Constitutional for us to own our guns, there should be no restrictions on what kind of guns you can own, as long as they’re for defensive purposes. Now what kind of a gun is for defensive purposes? Basically anything. A nuclear weapon is not because it is unstable and it could cause harm by itself. A gun keeps you alive. If you have to wait for the police, by the time you’re calling 911, someone’s either hurt or dead. A gun is a way for you to protect yourself. When someone comes to your house and they have a gun and you don’t, you’re at a disadvantage. If you abolish all gun ownership laws, you have complete gun control, which I’m sure both of my opponents would enjoy, what do you think will happen? We’ve seen it happen in other countries. When finally what’s called victim disarmament, right? The victims don’t have guns. The criminals continue to have guns because they’re illegal anyway. What do they care? They’re not going to register something? Who cares? The amount of homicides caused by guns increases when you limit the gun ownership by people. I support the complete repeal of all gun control laws. I think guns save lives. I think it should be your choice, your decision whether to own it or not. Your children are far more likely to die in a neighbor’s pool by drowning than by any accidental guns. Children don’t often run into each other with knives. You don’t have knife control laws. The Constitution’s created for a reason. We’re allowed to defend ourselves and I oppose any restriction on our abilities to do so. Thank you.
Diane Farrell: Phil, I’ve so enjoyed our debates, I really have but I’ve got to disagree with you so strongly on this issue. For eight years, I was responsible for the Town of Westport. I had looked in the eyes of our police offices, I had looked in the eyes of our police chief, and I can only tell you that guns are dangerous in the wrong hands. And it’s absolutely imperative that we have controls. We have more gun violence in this country than in Canada. I don’t think we’re that dissimilar. We have got to get controls on this. And I’m gonna say it again, folks. It’s very simple. Chris has just given you a list. I could have given you a list. My point is that list will remain a list as it has for years unless we change the leadership, especially in the House of Representatives.
Moderator: Mr. Shays, go ahead.
Phil Maymin: No?
Phil Maymin: I don’t think anybody should be surprised to hear that the police want people to have less guns. That’s only natural. But it’s not up to the police to determine our rights. It’s up to us, and those rights have been determined. We have the right to protect ourselves. It’s in the Constitution. If you want to try to force an amendment down our throats, you’re welcome to do so but you can’t circumvent it.
Moderator: Mr. Shays?
Christopher Shays: I believe people have the Constitutional right to have arms and I believe the government has the Constitutional right to regulate it. And all the suggestions I made are quite simple and don’t in any way deprive people of guns. They can have rifles, they can pistols, and so on. A three day waiting period is so that we know if someone in fact has a criminal record because we don’t want a criminal to have a weapon. Dealing with gun shows where we’ve had people literally sell hundreds of guns to one individual. For what purpose? And so the answer is we can be sensible. We can be smart. We can allow people to have their Constitutional right to bear arms and at the same time we can protect our public and in particular our kids.
Maymin: Just one quick thing. If either of my opponents could please point me to that area of the Constitution that allows them to control my guns, I have never seen it. I do know there’s a second amendment. I haven’t seen one that allows the Congress or the government to regulate guns.
Moderator: Ready for the next question?