How would an assault weapons ban have prevented Sandy Hook?

The theory is, without an assault weapon, the nutter couldn't have shot so many people in the school.

This theory overlooks a LOT of facts.

1) The weapon used was not an assault weapon. Assault weapons are either burst or fully automatic weapons (that is, one pull of the trigger sends three or more rounds downrange). The weapon used at Sandy Hook was a military-style semi-automatic rifle (one pull of the trigger, one round goes downrange).

Why would a civillian need a military-style rifle? The military has invested BILLIONS of dollars making a weapon that is easy to use, reliable, and comfortable to fire; not to mention that many gun owners learned to shoot in the military and want a gun that is familiar.

As far as lethality goes, a WWII era M-1 Garand semi-automatic rifle is MUCH more lethal than an AR-15, and the Garand is NOT affected by any assault weapon ban so far. The 5.56x45 NATO round, when used for hunting, is only rated for small game - nothing bigger than small deer or medium-large dog size. For hunting larger deer, or other targets around human mass, you would use the 7.62x51 NATO or 30-06 (7.62x63) round, because shooting a large deer with a 5.56 would likely only wound instead of kill.

2) The shooter not only had the AR-15, he also had two 9mm pistols and plenty of ammo for them. Had he not had the AR-15, he could have done just as much damage with the pistols. Between the two of them, he had between 20 and 30 rounds in the magazine for them, plus whatever reloads he had.

3) Assault weapons - indeed, ALL guns - were already banned from the school. Notice how much he cared about that.

4) Even if his mother hadn't had ANY guns at all, if he'd wanted to shoot up the school he could have gone down to the local crack dealer. The crack dealer could have referred him to a 'black market' arms dealer who then could very well have set the nutter up with a GENUINE assault weapon - probably an old AK-47, with the 7.65x39 round. And THAT weapon can empty a 30-round clip in one pull of the trigger.

In other words, an assault weapon ban wouldn't have done diddly-squat to prevent that psycho from committing his crime.

But an armed teacher very well might have.

haha I also look forward to answers of this.

I watched the helicopter footage of the cops clearing the trunk of lanza's car. They found a long gun of some sort (the picture was grainy), although I can guarantee it was not an AR-15 style rifle (more specifically the Bushmaster brand reported by media outlets). The officer cleared the firearm by cycling the bolt from a SIDE MOUNTED bold handle. AR style weapons have a T-shaped charging handle MOUNTED ON TOP of the receiver housing. This cannot be altered except by a professional gunsmith, and even then, nobody does that due to cost, difficulty, and there being no need to do so.

It could have been an AK style weapon, but nobody has reported it as that, and apparently an AK is more terrible than an AR, so the media would have been all over it.

There already was an assault weapons ban in Connecticut prior to the Sandy Hook incident. Didn't seem to do much good. Facts don't stop liberals from pushing false information at people.

It wouldn't.

FYI Connecticut has an assault weapons ban. The gun was already illegal. It was also illegal for the shooter to have it. It was also illegally stored by his mother.

Funny how laws can't prevent the lawless from reaching their goals.

Joel, you're naive. Did prohibition reduce alcoholism? And of course, because drugs are illegal, no one abuses them. Nobody ever speeds, there is no crime at all because the law protects us, right......

Connecticut had a partial ban on so-referred to as attack weapons on the time of the shooting. The AR-15 that Lanza's mom owned had already been offered earlier the ban grew to become into handed, so it grew to become into grandfathered-in. it is incredibly popular of weapons bans, in view that confiscating weapons that folk already very own runs into countless legal and sensible obstacles.

The ban on assault weapons has got to be a first step. US politicians are corrupted by the NRA and frightened to take a stand.

It might not have prevented it, but it sure does reduce the possibility that it will happens again in the future.

Uhh, because there would be no assault weapons

It wouldn't have, neither would more guns.

The problem isn't guns, it's Americans!