Thursday, January 17, 2013

Current Gun Control Laws Didn't Stop Newtown Shooting

The President and the Democratic Party are trying very hard to create new gun control laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings last month. Because Adam Lanza used a legally obtained gun, right?

Oh wait, he didn't. He used stolen guns that were obtained illegally.

Actually, Lanza was stopped from purchasing guns legally by in-place gun control laws. He committed multiple gun crimes before , stealing his mother's guns (4 counts), unlawful carrying of a pistol without a permit, carrying those guns into a gun-free zone, carrying them without a carry permit, I can go on and on. In total he broke 41 laws in perpetrating his crime. That includes 27 counts of First Degree Murder. Of the remaining fourteen laws he broke, thirteen were gun-control laws.

There were thirteen gun control laws that were ALREADY IN PLACE that Adam Lanza broke in perpetrating his horrible crime. Please, do tell me how a fourteenth law would've helped? More importantly, please tell me all about how criminals follow laws.

Yet the President wants to ram through more gun control legislation in the wake of this horrific event. Will it stop criminals like Adam Lanza? I mean, he didn't mind breaking the existing thirteen gun control laws that were in place before his crime.

The only people who will be stopped from carrying weapons with new Gun Control laws are the law abiding citizens. In other words, the innocent victims will now be at a disadvantage. The criminals will still get illegal weapons. It's been said that as little as 5% of gun crimes are committed using legally obtained guns. If this is true, (or even if the 5% number isn't perfect, it is indeed a fact that the majority of gun crimes use illegal guns) then the only answer is for the law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves.

Remember, both Adam Lanza in Newtown, CT and James Eagan Holmes, the alleged perpetrator of the Aurora, CO shootings this past summer, were breaking existing gun control laws in perpetrating or allegedly perpetrating, respectively, their crimes. If the current laws aren't working, why would new ones work?

So what is the solution?

The question we should be asking after this year's recent rash of shootings is, in my opinion, how can we ensure that law abiding citizens are able to protect themselves and others when a crazed gunman comes in to perpetrate such a crime. In Aurora, CO, why wasn't there a law abiding citizen able to stop James Eagan Holmes (allegedly)?  When the shooting occurred, I had discussed seeing Dark Knight Rises with a good friend who has a concealed carry permit the day after the Aurora Shooting.  Let's call him Joe (because that's his name).  I remember thinking, while everyone was worried about copycats at future showings of Dark Knight Rises, "If that happens at my showing, I'll be with a law-abiding, trained citizen who can DO SOMETHING about the crime in progress."

The bottom line is this: Gun Control laws only keep the law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It doesn't stop the criminals.  They sure didn't stop Adam Lanza. 


  1. So the legislation seems to have 3 main parts. First is an universal background check, which is has nothing to do with Sandy Hook (though I don't have a problem with background checks). The second is limiting magazines to only 10 cartridges. Again, I don't see how this would make a difference. The guy was walking around with 6 guns. I don't think that storage space for his magazines would have hindered him. However, it would significantly hinder Joe defending himself, though it wouldn't affect handguns. The third part is a ban on assault rifles. Lanza had 6 guns, but only one was an assault rifle. Since he got all of his guns from his mother, a ban would have hindered him, but he would only be one gun short.

  2. That depends on what the background check is actually checking. Much like a virus scanner in a computer, background checks will only find the things it's looking for...and to what degree will those standards be applied? Stopping people who have been convicted of a felony is easy and fairly obvious. But these checks for "mental illness?" What is the standard? There are varying degrees of mental illness. Furthermore, what checks for accuracy will be included? A man may have a report in his record of stalking his ex-wife, but it turns out he did no such thing, was cleared of wrong doing, and his ex was a vindictive person. These situations have happened in the past with background checks.

    As far as Lanza being "one gun short" is that true? Or would he have simply changed his plans to obtain the guns some other way?

  3. All of his guns were his mother's, who he shot first. The guns he had were extremely convenient to get (once his mom was dead). I doubt he had criminal access to guns. So if his mom couldn't buy them legally, he wouldn't have had access to them.

    However, I don't think this justifies a ban. There were so many special features to this case that I don't think there is a concern of this happening again. That's a major reason why I am against "NEVER AGAIN" legislation. It's emotional reaction, rather than something carefully reasoned. Of course, in this case it is more oppurtunistic.


All posts will be reviewed subject to the Rules for Commenting. Any post that does not abide by these rules will not be posted, entirely at the discretion of the blog editor.

Commenters who repeatedly violate these rules will be permanently banned from commenting, and thus none of their comments, regardless of content, will be posted.