One of the main things in this incident were assault weapons. If we banned then Adam Lanza wouldn't of been able to get a hold of them and start this mass shooting and hysteria. This is the reason we have to ban assault weapons, to stop more things like this.
Adam Lanza acquired the weapons he used in the shooting legally. He just took them from his mom. If there was a ban on assault weapons, his mother never would've had them leaving Adam with no chance to get the weapons. You can argue that criminals will always find a way, but before the shooting Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal. You think a 20 year old guy living with his parents in Connecticut has access to illegal gun sales? I don't think so.
Assault weapons have been banned in Australia, but there was no significant drop in crime. People would still have access to weapons. And we all know guns don't kill people, it's the person controlling the gun that kills people. It's silly to believe taking away guns would prevent crimes like this from happening, the people need help.
It's that simple, really. If the shooter at Sandy Hook was going to break laws that prevented murder, then he would've broken laws to acquire the assault rifle. If anything, he would've been even quicker and more confident in his plan, because he would've been assured safety from civilian resistance.
There is no way in the world Adam Lanza would have been stopped by a law. If people care little enough about the law to kill people, how would they respect the law enough to not own an illegal gun? Besides, the AR-15 wasn't even known about until police inspected his car and found it in the back seat.
Sandy hook didn't happen. It was a hoax set up to do this exact thing-ban assault weapons and take away peoples rights. The "dead" kids sang at the Super Bowl, there were tweets and Facebook pages setup before it happened and the parents seem to be acting. Even if it was real assault weapons wouldn't have been the problem. If. Someone was willing to kill 20 kids and 6 school staff and their mother I doubt they wouldn't be willing to illegally buy an illegal gun.
On 4/16/07, Cho Seung-hui showed us how much damage could be done with a pair of small-caliber pistols, such as those carried by Lanza. Had he not had the rifle, Lanza simply would have blown .30 and .40 caliber holes into his victims as opposed to .22 caliber ones. 10mm packs a heck of a punch.
The man who invaded Sandy Hook and killed innocent people wanted to do so, and he would've used any weapon at his disposal. If assault weapons were banned, the attack may have been less severe, but it still would've happened. He could have used a different gun, a bomb, or something much more sinister. It seems (at least to me) like he was committed to killing people that day, and he would have used any weapon at his disposal to do it.
Maybe not as many people would have been killed; more injured, less fatalities. I believe, it could have still happened with a high death toll. Even one death is too high, of course! If a 'shooter' has an agenda to kill, you won't stop him/her. They'll find a way. IMO.
For Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza stole a Bushmaster XM15-e2s from his mother and attacked the school. If this style of weapon was illegal, his mother would have most likely not had one in her possession. And therefore, he would not have been able to steal it and use it. However, she was an avid gun advocate and had a significant number of guns. The situation would have likely played out with handguns and/or normal rifles. One can make an argument that not as many people may have died if that was the case, but there still would have been a sandy hook incident.
Seung Hui Cho had two handguns and killed 32 people before killing himself, Adam Lanza also had two handguns on him, he could have easily used those and killed the same amount, if not more people, so the argument that the assault rifle kills more is false.
Source: The Virginia Tech Massacre