Amazon.com Widgets

Could gun laws have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting?

  • Stricter gun laws could have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting.

    It goes without saying that stricter gun laws could prevent any shooting. This does not necessarily mean that they will, unfortunately. What stricter gun laws would do, however, is force a cooling period in which someone who contemplating gun violence has time to re-think the decision to harm people who often have no direct connection to their discontent.

  • Yes, they could have.

    Stringent gun laws could have prevented a lot of the shooting that we have had in the last 100 years. An immediate gun ban may not affect a lot of shooting for the next few years but it will have a major impact 100 years from now. It takes time for these laws to show a difference.

  • Gun laws could have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting.

    Obviously, if guns were illegal, the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary school never would have happened. The Second Amendment is an anachronistic law that should not be in place in the modern world. The framers of the Constitution never anticipated that modern guns would be so deadly. They did not intend for people to have modern weapons.

  • Maybe.

    Maybe if there were stricter gun laws, Lanza's mother couldn't have obtained the weapons used in the shooting. There could be a law that those who live with someone who is mentally unstable cannot legally own a gun or other type of firearm. (Something along those lines.) I don't know really.

  • Gun Control Would Have Helped

    Gun control would have definitely helped and maybe even prevented the Sandy Hook shooting. It is too easy too get a gun these days. Gun laws need to be tightened so e can make sure that people who have no business holding a gun cannot get their hands on one.

  • Yes, they could have

    I'm not going to dignify the scum that did this by writing their name, but look at it this way. Which route to a firearm is harder for a teenager, them being made illegal or his freaking mother buying him one? He may have been able to obtain a gun illegally, it's possible, but it's a very stupid conclusion to assume he would know how to. While in the mindset of wanting to commit the horror that he did, it being HARD TO GET A GUN may have frustrated him enough to give up on the idea.

  • It wouldn't work

    Having guns outlawed would simply take them from law abiding citizens. As the old saying goes, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Do you really think a criminal with a desire to kill would give over his gun? Even in the event of a gun recall, killers will find other ways. Serial killers have used knives, the uni bomber used bombs in mail, and even Hitler used gas to kill

  • It wouldn't work

    Having guns outlawed would simply take them from law abiding citizens. As the old saying goes, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Do you really think a criminal with a desire to kill would give over his gun? Even in the event of a gun recall, killers will find other ways. Serial killers have used knives, the uni bomber used bombs in mail, and even Hitler used gas to kill

  • Killing is already and illegal act and a simple law would not prevent access to any sort of back ally options

    The act of taking a human life is already an egregious action seen as one of the worst (if not the worst) crime a person can commit anyone crazy, vile, or hopeless enough to commit such actions would not be stopped by one more law from committing there action options like theft and black market deals will still be available. If someone has the resolution to take the life of another the barrier of another law will not stop them

  • Shooter's Mother's fault

    Guns were legally purchased. Nancy Lanza taught her defective son how to use the guns. She knew he was defective, failed to seek proper care for him and protection for the public, despite having financial resources. She failed to secure her guns. Lanza killed his mother to take her legally purchased guns, to then commit the mass murder of 6yr olds. Gun ownership is a HUGE responsibility. Nancy Lanza failed the victims and families of Sandy Hook, not the guns laws.

  • Gun free zones

    Because there are always wars, guns will be manufactured. People who don't care about laws, will obtain guns illegally, as history shows. The only thing that will reduce deaths is a good trained person close by to kill the shooter. Could be a cop, or trained Concealed Carry citizens. (My opinion)

  • No, the wrong person had the guns.

    No, gun laws could not have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting, because the shooter was not the one who owned the guns. The shooter got his guns from someone else who lawfully had them. We cannot keep guns from every person who knows someone with a mental illness. That would contradict the Second Amendment.

  • It Wasn't His Gun

    Since the gun used in the Sandy Hook shooting was actually a stolen firearm, I do not think that gun laws would have prevented the incident. A person who wants to obtain a firearm will eventually obtain a firearm, this is fact. Introducing laws to prevent gun ownership or make it more strict, will not stop these incidents from happening. If anything, addressing mental illness more fully would be of better value to society overall.

  • ?

    Nancy was not supposed to have the assault rifle anyway. It was illegal to own one in conneticut. They had a ban on that weapon so how she got it registered doesn't make sense. It was also a military type weapon. Hers how it works. Bombs are illegal but people still use them. So even if you made guns illegal people will get them if they want them. Why disarm the public. Adam had mental issues people shouldve looked at that first

  • Speculative at Best, Not Enough to Change Public Policy

    Despite the media presentation, there is still a multitude of gun laws that are present to restrict the private citizen's access to the multitude of weapons. What I do not like is that they fail to attain proper education and understanding of the nature of the weapons and blame society for such tragedies, especially those constituents that are absolutely irrelevant.

    These sociopaths present with evil and danger, they are not stupid or predictable. Individuals like these do not even provide a distinct indiciation of unusual behavior. Although his mother expressed concern, there was nothing she could do.

    My point is that we shouldn't start changing public policy due to relatively isolated incidents.

  • It is too speculative to make that association

    Such an association between public policy and a tragic incident is speculative at best, if not disturbing due to the politicization and capitalization on such a tragedy. One could say that gun regulations would have limited Lanza's access to the weapon, but he clearly stole the weapons from his mother to execute the incident. Others have stated that he would have not been able to kill with such efficiency with other weapons, but that is also speculative.

    However, it is clear that there are mental health aspects need to be addressed.

    Whoever opened this debate up (probably a Bob Costas-like idiot) should be ashamed of themselves for trying to politicize such a tragedy to push a anti-gun agenda.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.