Wait a Minute. You Own a Grenade Launcher?

by Categorized: Uncategorized Date:

Am I alone in finding this whole spectacle rather odd?

Dude is there in uniform. Is he laying out his gun control position in an official capacity? Or just as an interested citizen?

Either way it raises some questions.  One of the commenters says this is the position of “the vast majority” of street cops.  Is it? I have no idea, but it seems counter-intuitive. Cops walk up to so many cars and into so many unknowable situations. That they would wish for an extravagantly armed populace seems unlikely.

I’m sure I’m being unfair to Trooper Delehanty, but, as reported, this show and tell session comes very close to what many of us think of when we hear (or use) the term “gun nut.” You have a 30-round clip because…you see them in movies? You have all these powerful weapons because …well, this one would be useful for “boar hunting.”  Boar hunting?  And you’re supposed to be keeping us safe? Why do I not feel safe?



The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

23 thoughts on “Wait a Minute. You Own a Grenade Launcher?

  1. Richard

    You need to be in Northwest bar in CT the week of the Sandy Hook shootings and get into a talk about gun control when 4 semis hit the bar and an open challenge is issued “Take my gun away. Try it.”

    Of course one of the pistol packing-buddies buddies was ex-police. He still target shoots with them.

    Then there was the ‘bullets on the bar’ show and tell (and much arguing) about the caliber and bore and the weapons Lanza used.

    I always enjoy a cold bud.

    1. Bill

      it is good that these people come out of the woodwork. It only strengthens the argument that society must and will begin the long overdue process of getting rid of these weapons.those guys slamming the guns on the bar more then likely have small size issues and I am not speaking about their guns.

  2. peter brush

    I’m interested in the show; analyzing the various witnesses, victims, advocates, hacks. But, at this point, two months after the crime at Newtown, what are we supposed to actually do in legislative response? Personally, I still don’t understand why the AR-15 the punk had is legal now, and I’m not above average obtuse. Do we have any understanding of how Governor Malloy’s preemptive proposal would work (or not)?
    Do I feel safe? Of course not. But I live in New England’s Rising Star where every criminal released form jail comes enjoy parole. But, I wouldn’t mind a bit if this cop were to live on my street.

  3. Steve

    Colin, of course you don’t understand its not your bailiwick. Many of the organizations that represent rank & file officers (not chiefs) are pro-gun like FoP. The statistics show that people who take the time to get carry permits are 4-5x less likely to be arrested.

    If so-called ‘assault weapons’ are such a danger to society, why has the percentage of homicides due to rifles dropped from 5.6% in 1978 to 2.8% in 2011? Its generally agreed that modern sporting rifles have drastically grown in popularity to almost 50% of rifles sales in the last few years.

    Who needs 30 rounds? Here’s a scenario: 3 armed intruders break into a house. Studies on police shootings show that officers typically only hit ~30% of the time. They also show it takes 2-3 shots to incapacitate an attacker. So, with 3 attackers & 3 hits needed – 70% miss rate = 27 shots needed. Of course, this is just theoretical & everyone knows that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away…


    1. Richard

      People repsond to this story differently. Me, I’m happy for the victim there is a court of last resort and for the uniformed perpetrators, they will see justice at that court 🙂

      Six Norwich Police officers fired 41 shots at a despondent Michael Dugas Sunday night, six of which struck him, a law enforcement source said Friday.

      The gun he had been holding was a fake, the source said. Police suspect Dugas wanted the officers to kill him. Neighbors described Dugas as a kind man with a drinking problem.

  4. cmcenroe Post author

    Thanks for your thoughtful response, Steve. But I have to ask: looking around the country, starting in Newtown and fanning out, we can see little boys and girls (and in other locales, adults) who are dead but could be alive if the shooter had to reload more often. So how would you explain this to a parent of one of those kids? Are there really scenarios like the one you set up there — where somebody “needed” a big clip to defend himself? Because we know these other shooters “needed” a big clip to kill a lot of people.

    1. Steve (CT)

      Colin, whether or not any particular individual would or would not have lived due to a reload being needed by a bad guy is pure speculation. Of course, being a bad guy why would he (usually a he) worry about following the law & using lower capacity magazines (if there was such a law)?

      There also seems to be a common belief by anti-gun people that firearms are used more often in crimes than in self defense. The Clinton administration authorized a survey by the NIJ that found firearms were used ~1.5 million times per year in self defense. IIRC, the # of crimes using a firearm at that time was ~400K. Both those #’s are probably lower at this time since violent crime has dropped ~50% over the last 20 years, despite (or because of?) the number of firearms increasing ~60%.

      Between 2004-2011 there were 850 homicides. A grand total of 2 of those are attributed to rifles. The chance that either could be attributed to an ‘assault weapon’ is slim. In contrast, Joe Biden’s recommended shotguns were responsible for 14 during that same period.

      BTW, here’s a video by a Sheriff from Boone County, Indiana showing how little difference there is in several scenarios with different sized magazines.


        1. cmcenroe Post author

          Steve, a lot of things are “pure speculation.” You started our conversation with a scenario involving three armed guys invading a house. Pretty speculative. It does appear that six kids escaped Sandy Hook during a reload. (We’ll know more when the official report comes out.) Could you look one of those grieving parents in the face today and say, “It’s too speculative to say that limiting clip size would save more kids. Not worth trying.”?

          1. Steve (CT)

            I don’t think its good policy to make laws based on emotion, but that’s me. I prefer to use statistical evidence whenever available. The 5 states that have stricter gun laws than CT all have higher violent crime rates. In fact, MA has bucked national trends & their rate has gone up since passing very strict laws in ’98.


            You can also look at VA Tech where the killer there used 2 pistols with 10 & 15 rd magazines against 32 adults, not defenseless children. Had the recent killer used his 2 pistols rather than the rifle, I doubt the end result would have been any different.

            I did catch that story, though I also saw a different version that claimed the shooter had to clear a jam. Don’t know which is more accurate. The dirty secret that magazine manufacturers don’t advertise is that the larger the magazine, the less reliable it is. The Aurora shooter discarded his rifle after it jammed fairly early from what I’ve read.

            The #’s I’m using are from the FBI UCR reports which you can find online or I can email you the spreadsheet. Actually, I just remembered that have it shared: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4EuX9RjmuxxZnJGTnA2Sk9KV2c/edit?usp=sharing

            What I want is laws to be enforced against criminals. Look up Office of Legislative Research report No. 2007-R-0442, “Case Statistics for Firearm Violations for the years 2001-2007” & look at the large percentage of people who were not prosecuted. How many times are these charges plead down for someone that goes on to commit further crimes?

            Why not have an additional criminal charge whenever a magazine over 20 rounds is used during the commission of a crime? That would punish criminals & not lawful owners. The idea that 10’s of millions of magazines over some capacity can be purged from society is just not realistic. New 3D printers are making it possible for people to create major components in the privacy of their own home.

            Its worth checking out the recently leaked memo from the NIJ regarding some of the proposals. Fairly honest assessment.


          2. cmcenroe Post author

            If we used statistics, we’d be having a very serious talk about handguns.
            But we’ve seen in the past what happens when we try to do that.
            To suggest that the pro-gun lobby does not use emotions is ridiculous.

          3. Steve (CT)

            I don’t think the pro-gun lobby uses emotion as extensively (or effectively) as the antis, but I’m saying that I use stats.

            Its true that handguns account for 49% of homicides as of 2011, though that’s almost 10% off the high point of ’93. However, as I’m sure you know, the Supreme Court ruled that ownership of a handgun for self defense is a right, making outright prohibitions impossible. Besides, if bans worked wouldn’t Chicago & DC have been crime free paradises?

            Which brings up the point that in the last 20 years, liberal concealed carry has spread to 41 states & the # of firearms has expanded from 180 to 300 million & modern sporting rifles make up almost 50% of rifles sales. During that same period, violent crime is down by 49% & murder down by 58%.

            If its the guns that are the problem, how is that possible? Shouldn’t we be focusing on the criminals instead of the tools as we did with drunk driving? Personally, I think the war on drugs needs to be looked at closely. The other issue is whether we can find a better balance for mentally troubled people without violating their rights.

          4. Richard

            As far as the handguns thing goes Steve handguns make up 44% of all murders listed as known. Of the 27% of guns listed as unknown most are considered to be handguns based on past studies. OF all gun related death over 90% are handguns based on past studies. Rifles and various large semiautomatics gain more notoriety,

          5. Steve (CT)

            Richard, now I understand your numbers. I’ve been using both national & CT numbers but not always remembering to differentiate.

        2. Richard

          You can get the figures at the states Uniform Crime Report web site.


          2011 is typical. 5 counties had 10 murders of the 128 CT murders. Those 10 are usually 50% domestic disputes.

          Then there’s the cities of Hartford (27), New Haven (34), Bridgeport (20), and Waterbury (7) which account for the bulk of the homicides every year.

          Rifles? Rarely used. Handguns? Estimated at 75%. Semi-automatics? Not so much. More common when spraying an auto with a 10-round clip resulting in non-lethal injuries.

          The urban crime thing gets ugly really quick with profiling of the most likelies. The same people who would harass a couple hundred thousand CT residents who handle guns reasonably would not even consider expanding police powers to profile the most likelies.

          It’s typical politics. The Right favors no changes at all. The Left favors harassing the middle class in some sort of misguided but well-meaning quixotic venture to quell gun violence.

          It’s the same story with National Health Care that morphed into Obamacare and then so many other great liberal ideas implemented badly enough to turn stomachs.

          The last proposal out of Dan Malloy was to restrict firearms from DWI offenders. Why? No one knows. There’s no empirical research that says DWI Offenders are the source of gun crime in CT. But it must have looked good when MADD came to call with campaign finance funds. Why not clobber together something completely inane to appeal to the lobby groups?

          I don’t have any problem with gun control; I have little hope it will address most of the issues. The Operation Longevity project has more upside IMHO.

          1. Steve (CT)

            Richard, your #’s seem a little off. I get between 41-55% of murders caused by handguns from ’04-’11 not 75%. You mention ‘autos’ being used which I assume is fully automatic machine gun? I don’t see them listed in the stats & by the stories I read in the news it appears they are very rare. Of course, importing drugs from outside the US is easy enough so they could certainly include some in the shipments.

            What I read in the news down here in SW CT is primarily someone in a bad section of town gets shot in the butt, leg, arm, hand with a small caliber pistol or revolver. I can only assume that its some type of drug or gang related incident where a person is showing their dominance by inflicting a non life threatening injury.

            Of course, every once in a while it breaks out into turf wars where grudges seem to be held for years. These people are stealing their guns or getting family members without criminal records to buy for them (already illegal). I assume prosecutions must be difficult because there don’t seem to be many of them, or perhaps there are other reasons?

  5. peter brush

    we can see little boys and girls (and in other locales, adults) who are dead but could be alive if…
    Of course. So, let’s outlaw homicide. Why argue about weaponry? Let’s get rid of the act “comprehensively,” as solons and bureaucrats might say.
    Nutmeg Anti-homicide Rally: date to be announced when Capitol grounds not so wet, weather doesn’t suck so bad.

  6. equality 7-2521

    Let’s not forget the bobbies of London.

    But alas, its much too late here. Violence begets violence especially in such a super competitive society as ours.

  7. peter brush

    Wait a Minute. You Own a Grenade Launcher?
    South Windsor Police Chief Matthew Reed also testified and said that ‘assault weapons’ weren’t even the most lethal weapon that could be legally purchased in the state.

    “You can own a fully automatic machine gun in the state of Connecticut. And until you’re going to make that stop, what difference does it make,” said Reed, who also said ‘assault weapons’ were particularly difficult to define.


  8. Todd Zaino

    Liberals grumbling about guns and gun control, it’s becoming very tiresome. Is it better to sit around your house waiting for an armed intruder to find you unarmed in your own home?

    Imagine if you will, a one-eyed, one-legged, vegan, pregnant illegal,former mental patient in a wheelchair breaks into your home to relieve of some your valuable possessions. Her solar-powered Toyota Prius still running in your driveway awakes you as you get out of bed to see what’s going on. You explore your home and come upon the intruder grabbing your most valuable items. What do liberals want Americans to do? Should the homeowner be made to corner this break-in artist and hold her at bay with a long bird feather as you tickle her with one hand and attempt to dial 911 with other? Luckily, she’s very ticklish and Five-O arrives at your home to arrest the young lady. Now where’s your real troubles begin. The ACLU wants to know what you have against pregnant illegals Democrats, NOW wants to know how long you’ve hated women, PETA wants to know where in the hell you got that feather to defend yourself, and why you have bacon in your refrigerator. The young lady is awaiting trial, and in the court of public opinion everyone thinks you as homeowner had a hell of a lot of nerve defending yourself against this poor young lady. The Courant runs op/ed pieces against you…and Susan Campbell has a walk-a-thon to raise money for the one-eyed, one-legged, pregnant, former mental patient, illegal, vegan, Democrat, who broke into your home.

    1. Richard

      It’s nearly that bad Todd.

      You know if if the Bizarro babes Beth and Susan are setting policy then its going to be a farce and will result in increasing the number of homicides.

      Litchfield, Tolland and Windham Country average 1 homicide a year between the 3 of them according the the state FBI UCC reports.

      Let’s tax their ammo! Let’s regulate them to death! Let’s harass the gun owners there! And let’s be Nimby’s and blame the suburbs!

      New London County averages 5 homicides a year typically urban violence in Norwich (2) or New London(3)

      MiddleSex Cpunty averages 4 homicides a year with a random pattern of domestic violence and spill over from Hartford or New Haven counties.

      The other 3 counties? They average over 100 homicides a year Most are in 8 cities. Let’s not target those cities! That would be racist! Let’s target the suburbs instead! Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport get a pass!

Comments are closed.