Skip to comments.ABC News: ‘Unlikely’ Assault Weapons Ban Would Have Stopped Sandy Hook
Posted on 12/19/2012 3:45:49 PM PST by ColdOne
click here to read article
This could be a broken clock scenario or maybe, just maybe they accidentally stumbled into the truth and reported it.
Someone is going to get a lousy fitness report for this year!
Once people get over Barry and his ‘RATS KNEEJERK REACTION and start using their heads, they’ll understand that “gun control” won’t do anything to stop these kinds of murders. We’ve got to deal with the monsters that the ‘RAT society has been creating since the 60s. If people REALLY want to blame someone other than the murderer, Adam Lanza, I suggest they try to be honest with themselves for once and point their crooked little fingers at the one in the mirror.
It's an old, old song.
Gun bans do not prevent crimes,they prevent citizens from defending themselves.
It could have been the old Remington .22 semi auto I used to hunt squirrels with and it would have been just as deadly. If I recall correctly it could hold either 16 longs or 18 shorts.
ABC News actually reported the truth? Broken clock scenario..better have taped it because you probably won’t see ABC News report the truth for the next 20+ yrs..its a once in a blue moon kind of thing
Like it stopped Columbine? Please. It is insulting that the media & the left think that people are so brainless that they can lie right to our faces.
Some of the higher people at ABC must love guns, shooting ranges or hunting. Someone if finally waking up in that organization.
Why the long-gun registry doesnt work and never did
Gun control is not about guns. It’s about control.
Registry is for the good guys. You really think the criminals are registering theirs?
someone should record this random act of journalism!
No firearms ban could have stopped it. Do you really think someone prepared to commit murder and suicide is going to give a rats backside about breaking another law? Or twenty, or one hundred? All these laws do is create groups of defenseless potential victims. It it’s doubtful there is any reasonable passive defense that could have prevented it. The best chance you have for ending an event like this with minimal loss of life is a trained active, rapid response. That means people with firearms in our schools people. Preferably several each.
Look for either a magazine capacity limit or a nationwide “bullet button” law like in Kalifornia.
Gun control should be a State’s Rights issue, and be controlled at the state level.
Which of course can be rectumfied with three simple steps they're willing to share with anyone who will listen, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please...
Was listening to some of our local talking head gun control sympathizers who want more gun control yesterday.
What they didn’t know, was that Connecticut has the 4th most stringent gun controls right now. Did it stop anything? No.
Gun control doesn’t work.
Control the mentally challenged, and guess what, the world is a safer place.
Sounds to me like someone at ABC didn’t read the WH “talking points” memo on this.
Expect a retraction and apology for reorting the story incorrectly in the next couple of day.
Setting the ground work for confiscation.
homicidal idiots use whatever they can get their hands on. bans only hinder the law-abiding.
Ok, what will? If that evil prick had a knife how many people would have been killed?
If people can own those kinds guns why can't they possess dynamite or other mass explosives?
It's call gun "CONTROL" for a reason, it's not called gun confiscation.
First, there are already more than 20,000 gun control laws actively on the books today and none of them prevented this tragedy. Second, millions upon million of people in America own guns and 99.9999% of them have never and will never do anything like this. But, the left would rather punish 100% of gun owners rather than 0.0001% of mentally disturbed people who might have access to guns!
So, lets lose the hysteria and analyze the facts - a PERSON did this, NOT a hunk of steel. In Portland, a PERSON killed two people in the mall, NOT a hunk of steel! In Denver, a PERSON shot up the theater, NOT a hunk of steel!!
NONE of these facts will matter to the gun-grabbing nanny-staters, because they focus solely on the gun and nothing else. So, what happens if ALL guns are outlawed and forcibly collected by the feds? Someone bent on committing mass murder may turn to knives, hatchets, chainsaws or machetes. So, we outlaw those. The next person to commit a heinous crime may use a bat, poison, poison gas or a semi-tractor. And the one after that may use a car, a pen or pencil, a rock, his hands . . . . . . so when do we blame the PERSON and NOT the inanimate weapon!???
The fact remains that until the left understands that murdering humans by ANY means including their favorite method, abortion, human life will be valueless and more copycats will come out to exercise their demented mass murder of innocent people.
All of that said, it occurs to me that the gun-grabbers are from the leftist school of complete control. What that means is that if 1 person commits a gun crime then, under the leftist theory of the “collective” and “groupthink”, they believe that ALL gun owners will commit mass murder unless they eliminate guns (good luck with that!). So, the calls for more gun control by the left after these incidents is twofold - eliminate the “balance of power” the Founding Fathers so carefully wove into the Constitution and gain total control over the people.
Another part that affects all of this is the fact that laws, whether gun laws, robbery laws, or whatever, are written solely to affect law-abiding citizens. People who commit crimes are called “outlaws” and criminals because they DON’T adhere to the laws created to control or stop their illegal activities.
So, should the left create additional gun control laws, will it prevent the next gun-related crime? Of course not. Laws only affect those of us who obey them. Those who disregard the law won’t be stopped from committing whatever crime they want to commit.
As a final note, Adam Lanza did not own the guns he used to murder all of the people at Sandy Hook Elementary. They were his mother’s guns and they were all legally purchased and registered. Which begs the question, what will any NEW gun control laws accomplish?
arrgghh I completely misread that. (Thanks for the heads up!) Only read the headline to boot.
I think I’m burned out on this. (It’s not going to do any good worrying about it) sheesh
“.....unlikely that if the law were still in place, as it was written.....”
The key words are, “as it was written”.
The ABC asshats are NOT agreeing with our side, ABC is in support of a much more restrictive law.
Maybe I’m cynical but...
I suspect this report was made for the purpose of justifying an even more draconian ban next time around.
It’s the typical liberal philosophy - if our policies didn’t work, then it wasn’t the policy, it was because we didn’t go far enough.
Go further. Get off defense & go on offense. Connecticut has strict gun control laws. So what happened? Why didn’t the liberals’ solution work in stopping this horrific crime? Get them to defend their ‘wonderful’ solution and explain why it failed. The CT shooting is a great opportunity and a teachable moment.
Drives me up the wall when I hear the LSM describe the AR15 as a High powered rifle arrrrrgggghhhh
Are you drunk?
My first thought, too.
Better to build a wall around the entire northeast US to keep the crazy contained.
Wow, some segments of the news media are way off script. If they keep this up, they’ll be banned from the White House.
That's the way I read it too. There was a drop in crime during that period, but none of it can be attributed to the AWB. But maybe if the law were more restrictive, it might work better than it didn't work the first time. Some kind of weird liberal logic, I guess.
The L.A. Times said the 1994 law, as written, would likely not have prevented the CT shooting. What they are, in fact, saying is that the 1994 law was NOT STRONG ENOUGH! They want a new bill that is stronger and more restrictive than the 1994 bill!
“Gun control should be a States Rights issue, and be controlled at the state level.”
Thanks a lot, pal. That doesn’t do those of us who live in Illinois, behind enemy lines, any good.
Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. He might, however, pay heed to the laws of probability.In a gun-free zone, a shooter would know that he would be the only one with a gun there. In an area where guns are allowed, he cannot be so certain.
Who wants to bet this will be taken more as a “The ban didn’t go far enough” rather than a “the ban was pointless”.
Better that Obama turns the entire country into New York City?
... also the key thing our side must do is slow down the process. Obama wants to seize the hysteria and momentum and ram something through. Slow it down to take months or maybe years and let them talk themselves to death and burn out.
I seem to remember that the early reports stated that the AR was found in the back seat of the car, implying that it was never used. What’s the story with that?
I was under the impression that the Bushmaster was in the trunk of the shooters car, now it is the weapon used. Does anyone know when they changed the story? Was it the actual weapon used or has it become the weapon to justify the ban on assault guns?
So far I've seen nothing confirming that the Bushmaster was even carried into the school, it's variously been "in the trunk of his car", "also taken", or similar; did I miss something critical to this debate?
No, I haven't had as much to drink as you, obviously!
Stop making stupidass comments and answer the question, if the guy had a knife how many would have died?
Yep...originally the AR-15 rifle was in the back of the car..And they ejected a shotgun shell from it. WTF?