Would an assault weapons ban have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting?

  • Preventing sandy hook

    Would an assault weapons ban have prevented the sandy hook massacre well I think it would have. Even though I am just 13, I believe a ban would have made a difference. I an speaking for all of the families of the victims .We need a assault weapons ban now because we cant have a repetition of sandy hook .Join me and vote yes for assault weapons ban now.

  • Availability of such weapon inflated body count

    The guns were illegal before the ban expired. The mother of the shooter purchased weapons legally.

    The shooter was not some sort of mastermind. He was a troubled soul that saw an opportunity and took it.

    The shooter took an entire clip to shoot the door open. He killed himself as soon as he heard sirens.

    At worst, a ban would have lowered the body count. At best, the shooting wouldn't have happened.

  • Handguns used in attack.

    NBC reported on Jan. 15, 2013, the armed assailant used four handguns in the attack. This story was not propagated, one could deduce, due to the overwhelming public support of passing a ban on these weapons. Yet, statistically, assault weapons (or ANY rifle) only account for 3% of all firearm homicides annually. Furthermore, I feel the law abiding citizen should be no less entitled to defend himself and his family with firepower equal to that available to the criminal element of our society.

  • CT already had an assault weapon ban

    It was proven to be ineffective. The criminal will ALWAYS find a way around bans of any sort. The issue at hand is not the weapond, but the criminal or mentally ill. Those are the people and things we MUST focus on, not some silly ideology that limiting guns or magazines is going to solve anything.

  • Guns don't kill people.

    If Lanza wanted to kill innocent children, not having an AR-15 would not have stopped him. He still brought 3 other guns with him that he would have used just as readily in place of the AR-15 had it not been available. If he hadn't had any guns, he could have simply used a bomb to kill multiple people. Taking tools away from people will not stop them from performing heinous acts. The question we need to be asking ourselves, as a society, is why did this take place? Because Lanza saw a gun and automatically was "corrupted" by the evil nature of the gun...I don't think so. Why are people in our society looking to kill many people at one time? Guns have ALWAYS been around and have ALWAYS been easy to obtain. Only recently have shootings of this magnitude become a problem. Our society is changing, and not in a good way. Until we figure out what is causing these heinous acts, we can remove everything we deem dangerous to people, but we still won't stop the bloodshed.

  • CT had an AW ban!

    Connecticut DID have an assault weapons ban already!

    When the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004 it was not reinstated because it was proven to be ineffective. However, Connecticut had created their own state assault weapons ban based on the previous federal ban. The problem is the term assault weapon is a lie. It's a political term created 25 years ago to describe legal semi-automatic firearms which resemble fully automatic military firearms. Yes, the assault weapons ban is about how something looks and not how it functions. It was deliberately created to mislead the public to think of military machine guns.

  • Not Necessarily

    The fact is that guns are designed to make killing quick and easy (quicker and easier than without the gun). Even if we decide to ban some guns, under some arbitrary classification, there will still be more weapons available. A normal handgun with a normal magazine could have been used in a mass school shooting.

  • NO

    The guy went in and killed his own mother to get hold of some of those guns, so he was obviously crazy and extremely determined to get into that school and go on a killing rampage.

    Banning assault weapons would have done no more to prevent that tragedy than banning alcohol prevented people from drinking during Prohibition.

    Whenever something like that it illegal, there is always somebody in the black market that is willing to take the risk to make a buck off of it. And there is always somebody with nefarious intent and an evil mind to take advantage of it.

    It might have taken the guy a little bit longer to get a gun, but the gun that got might have been one that even more highly powered than what he had and killed even more people. You just never know when it comes to things like this.

    The one thing that I can say from history and looking at the reality in many countries today is that it definitely would not have prevented him from getting a gun.

  • No

    It is unclear what weapons are classified as assault weapons and which ones aren't. A hand gun would not fall under the assault weapons ban, yet a mass shooting like the one that took place in Sandy Hook could have still occurred with hand guns. As long as we allow any type of gun to be easily accessible we will have tragedies like that one.

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