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
Today, ABC News finally reported the blindingly obvious fact that Sen. Dianne Feinsteins beloved assault weapons ban a piece of legislation now favored by President Obama would not have prevented the Sandy Hook shootings. Heres what they said:
Could a Ban Have Prevented the Connecticut Shootings?
It's impossible to say for sure, but it seems unlikely that if the law were still in place, as it was written, it could have done much to prevent Friday's tragedy. Lanza's primary weapon, the Bushmaster .223 rifle, is a type of AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, certain models of which were prohibited from being sold under the ban, but the Bushmaster model used by Lanza was not on that list.
Additionally, the language in the law was loose enough that a gun enthusiast who was interested in adding a type of AR-15 to their collection could have purchased one legally.
In fact, ABC News even admitted that the assault weapons ban passed by Congress in 1994 didnt work in the first place:
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
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”.