mrjharder11 t1_jacbjz7 wrote

Most of the coastline proper is private property, so public access to the water is hard to come by. Town beaches charge an arm and a leg for out-of-towners to access. Furthermore, the population density doesn't demand major attractions.

There are several instances where big box stores and shopping centers have been voted down because people want the quaint shoreline atmosphere and to keep their property values up.

I don't agree that CT is underdeveloped. It's pretty crowded on the shoreline, even now on the eastern portion past Old Saybrook.


mrjharder11 t1_jaam76g wrote

I think it's great your travel agent said CT. Yes!

New Haven is a great town if you stay around Yale, which is the reason New Haven thrives. Wooster St. for real Italian- American food. Sally's Apizza is the best around right now. Plenty of restaurants in New Haven. Tell me what you like. Lots of night clubs packed in around BAR on Crown St which is probably second best pizza. Also, if you decide you want to go to Boston or NYC it's a two hour trip either way by train.

Heading east from New Haven, the Guilford Green is very New England quaint and some very good restaurants bordering and also on Water St.

Madison has Cafe Allegra which is fantastic. Funky art theater next door and some shops and lighter fare. Hammonassett State Park is the flagship park in the state park system and worth visiting.

Clinton has Aqua and Shanks down by Cedar Island Marina. Summertime is best for that. Chow has very good bbq.

Westbrook has Bills Seafood which is more of a local hangout but very quirky and the food is distinctive New England seafood. If you don't get a hot buttered lobster roll there get one somewhere it's kind of a CT thing. The Rhode Island clam chowder is my favorite.

Definitely want to hit Old Saybrook. Main St has Livs Oyster Bar and a few other nice joints you can't go wrong. Also some lower-key spots. If you have the chance get up to Essex for another super-quaint New England town at the mouth of the Connecticut r.

East of CT River it gets spotty. I wouldn't go west of New Haven it gets crowded on Interstate 95 and not worth the travel time.


mrjharder11 t1_jaafgt4 wrote

The CCs have a list of classes they offer and to which schools those classes transfer as credit. You just have to line up your ducks and make sure you're taking classes that fit the requirements for the new school. Also check that the school you're going to accepts them and that you have a record of confirmation.


mrjharder11 t1_j9yaet5 wrote

Are drivers licenses made to deter car ownership? Is the bar exam meant to deter people from becoming lawyers? You want hacks cutting your hair and applying pesticides to your residence? You do realize there are people who try to do these things without training or a license that wind up literally ruining lives, right?

I agree, they put up a barrier to access but isn't that the point? So some yahoo doesn't become the next deadly yahoo?

Still curious why the 2nd Amendment is so sacred while we allow power to assail the 1st, 4th and 5th until we have zero freedom and security.


mrjharder11 t1_j9v08v9 wrote

So now CT is digging into the working poor's budget for ammunition? Man, they're always chiseling pennies away from the workers. Must be a huge burden on top of heating fuel and electrical costs this winter. They're probably leasing ammo from Aaron's Rent to Own


mrjharder11 t1_j9uy8m0 wrote

30% increases in cost. $30 per 1000 rounds.

Is it that much more per shooter? I mean, I'm not wild about it but takes me a while to squeeze off 1000 rounds. If its its going to education about firearm safety then isn't it a good application of tax dollars? I think there's a lot of data that shows that spending on prevention pays back a lot in outcomes. Like the Head Start program for preschool - every dollar spent pays off like 9 or 10 bucks down the road in dollars saved. It literally keeps teens and adults out of the welfare and criminal justice system. I'm for the same approach if that's the intent here for preventing gun deaths.


mrjharder11 t1_j9g4d5x wrote

NP. Also the crime in downtown Hartford isn't really a problem if you're just working there and maybe dining at night. Hartford is a commuter city so it kind of dies down after 6 pm. It doesn't have the heartbeat like New Haven or a big city like New York or Boston. Friday and Saturday are the only late nights in Hartford. Good luck and welcome to the States!


mrjharder11 t1_j9ea2tx wrote

West end of Hartford or West Hartford are close enough to take the bus. West end very quiet and a heterogeneous mix of people and incomes. I would rather live here than West Hartford proper. Property taxes can be high in Hartford.

West Hartford has everything you need but still just a quick bus ride down Farmington Ave to downtown Hartford. Probably easier to find housing but it's also a bit crowded. Very popular shopping and dining areas. Both places very nice to raise a family.

The other towns you mention are also nice residential suburbs but you'll need a car for sure. US suburbs are nice and quiet but you need a car to function within the paradigm. The commute sucks unless you leave early for/from work.


mrjharder11 t1_j9d6z4a wrote

Your source says nothing on gun laws just that the aforementioned states have low murder rates and low ownership percentages. This data really speaks to the intersections of poverty, education and population density.

The population densities of all of the low murder rate states are pretty sparse. I mean they really like their guns in Montana and Wyoming but they are some of the least populous states. Massachusetts is really an outlier it's pretty crazy their murder rate is so low with so many urban areas. I wonder how they do it?


mrjharder11 t1_j9bovc1 wrote

Ok but you can't reload a knife or a hammer. You can't launch a car in multiple directions at supersonic speeds. The argument that people kill people and not guns is pretty lame. Knives and hammers have a specific use and it's not the one handguns we're designed for, correct? Wasn't the revolver invented so calvary men could shoot six times instead of once before reloading?

What is missing from your eloquent pastiche is that guns are a force multiplier. How would Sandy Hook have gone if only knives and hammers were used? Pulse nightclub? That psycho in Las Vegas would have had to go down into the crowd and actually looked people in the eye before stabbing them, and before getting pounded into the ground. Instead he pussied out with a bump stock from afar.

It's easier, cheaper and more efficient to stop access to guns then it is to wave a wand and make crazy people go away. So yeah, guns are as much of the issue as the mental health part.


mrjharder11 t1_j9bm9f7 wrote

"You take away the guns and all you’re left with is destitute people" You're proving my point. The presence of guns IS THE difference.

I'm with you on the guns with a destitute population argument but isn't that the point of gun safety? I mean there are destitute and crazy people all over the world, not just in the US. Despite the problems we face in CT and the US, there are plenty of countries that have a destitute population. The difference in most cases is their people don't have easy access to guns.

Yet here we have a representative body in DC that thinks we should just hand them out like candy. Unfettered access to lethal weapons if the NRA had it their way. An institution, by the way, that receives less than 5% of it's contributions from its 5 million individual members. Hmmm, wonder who's chipping in the other 95%??? Perhaps a small group of manufacturers that profit from fearful citizens arming up against fearful citizens who are simultaneously arming up.

Let's help the mentally ill get off the streets. Let's adopt a tax policy that pays to help people instead of sapping them of any extra wages. But until we solve the social issues, let's just keep the guns away from the people that don't need them.

As for the AR-15 I don't understand why people want these weapons. I get people want to plink and shoot boar down in Texas but what is the need for a firearm originally commissioned by the military to replace the M1 Garand with it's large capacity and rapid fire? It really shreds up bodies in a gruesome way. Why does anyone need access to this weapon or anything else like it? Please don't tell me about how it's just a rifle that looks scary. It has a recoil buffer in the stock and its super light weight. Perfect for keeping your sights on target through rapid fire. Great for large mammals like boars and humans.

I find it puzzling that people go hard for the second Amendment but when it comes to states rights it's like No Fuckin Way. There are plenty of states where you can purchase an AR with little resistance. Any US citizen can always move there and fire away. They may use imperfect calculus, but I am glad my Statehouse is making it hard for people to get a gun.

I'll end with the tired analogy of drivers licenses. Why can't you just go get a license at DMV on a whim? Why can't children drive? Why do younger people pay a much higher premium for insurance? For whatever reason we don't apply this logic to firearms.


mrjharder11 t1_j9adtzz wrote

Ok you can ban those foods by name in schools but not in the public realm. I'm guessing it's unconstitutional but even if not, that's a stack of lawsuits waiting to happen. Also if you're going to ban these there are many you have omitted that deserve consideration. People will notice the selectivity.

How about a tax on trans fats? Or just phase it out completely over time? The subsidized corn industry will never allow banning HFCS, but I like the idea of not subsidizing corn. The reason these foods are overconsumed is because the raw materials are cheap from taxpayer subsidies. Beef and pork - cheap from corn subsidies - also not very good for you I see these didn't make it into your list.

You're also dealing with a public that likes these foods. Politically unpalatable. Wouldn't it be more prudent to educate the public about diet and exercise? Policy making doesn't have to start and end with bans. Gun policy isn't all banning either. I personally don't like the fact that the state is in our homes telling us how we can store guns and ammo, but I also want to live in a place where gun violence is low. Absent, really, but not in the US, unfortunately.

Im assuming you're trying draw a parallel with gun bans but that's a false equivalence. Handguns are made for killing. Not for target practice, hand/eye coordination or recreational. They're made for killing people. People frequent McDonald's to eat. It may be a poor choice from a health standpoint, but they're doing it out of choice. People DO NOT go out in public to get shot by a crazy or get caught in crossfire.


mrjharder11 t1_j9a5v2y wrote

Taking steps to reduce gun violence and taking steps to reduce other forms of death can exist at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive.

CT has one of the lowest gun death rates in the Union. Is there a link between that and CT firearm laws?

What's your proposal to reduce strokes, cardiovascular disease and household accidents?


mrjharder11 t1_j9a4ech wrote

Riley Farm Rescue

Rescued pets and farm animals. They will take you around to different pens and you can pet most of the animals. You can feed some of them as well. Really nice and compassionate crew.

My wife hooked up an air bnb here. They have a yurt near the entrance with air mattresses. A little musty but comfortable and it stayed 100% dry in an overnight downpour.