'New gun laws won't make a difference'

2012-07-24 08:02

Reno - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has backed gun control measures in the past, said on Monday that additional laws would not have stopped last week's massacre in a Colorado cinema.

"I still believe that the Second Amendment is the right course to preserve and defend and don't believe that new laws are going to make a difference in this type of tragedy," Romney told CNBC's Lawrence Kudlow in an interview.

Both Romney and his opponent, Democratic President Barack Obama, have demurred on the prospect of new gun control laws in the days since a gunman opened fire during a showing of the new Batman movie in a Denver suburb early on Friday, killing 12 and wounding 58.

In the interview, Romney said that "very stringent" gun laws already exist in Colorado. Specifically, Romney was asked about laws that might ban the online sale of ammunition or restricting the sales of semi-automatic weapons.

"Our challenge is not the laws, our challenge is people who, obviously, are distracted from reality and do unthinkable, unimaginable, inexplicable things," Romney said.

Some gun-rights groups have been sceptical of Romney because of his support for gun control measures when he served as governor of Massachusetts.

When asked if an assault weapons ban had worked in Massachusetts, Romney focused instead on how the law had bipartisan support.

"Actually the law that we signed in Massachusetts was a combination of efforts both on the part of those that were for additional gun rights and those that opposed gun rights, and they came together and made some changes that provided, I think, a better environment for both, and that's why both sides came to celebrate the signing of the bill," Romney said.

  • allcoveredinNinjas - 2012-07-24 08:38

    Might not have stopped him , but sure as hell would have made getting his hands on a high powered assault rifle a lot more difficult. Not sure what you need one of these for outside of military use , here's a link to the gun used : I don't see how high level regulation on weapons like this are a problem for anyone.

      thys.reeder - 2012-07-24 09:09

      What is a high powered assault rifle?

      brianmacza - 2012-07-24 09:41

      @thys - the same as an ordinary assault rifle. @ninjadude - the issue is not the weapon used... the issue is that the shooter KNEW nobody else in the cinema would be armed because the city laws prohibit citizens from carrying firearms within the city limits. With nobody able to shoot back, it was a no_risk issue and when he had done what he wanted he surrendered calmly. I personally believe in retribution - I sincerely hope this sicko finds comfort in Bubba's arms.

      flysouth - 2012-07-24 09:53

      The fact that cosmetically the rifle is modelled on a military design is quite irrelevant - it still shoots one round per trigger-pull, the same as any other semi-auto firarm sold all over the world. The real military models can shoot full-auto, which means the entire magazine can be emptied with a single trigger=pull - the ignorant call that a 'machine-gun'. The rifle used, although it looks military can do no more or less damage than any other semi-automatic weapon. Even a bolt-action rifle or a breech-loader could have inflicted the same damage in the hands of a person familiar with operating it. The weapon is a mere tool used by people whose personalities are psychotic - this is where the problem lies. In todays' PC world society is not able to 'filter' such dangerous people out before they go on the rampage. In previous times society could do that, as the notion of being 'judgemental' of your fellows was not outlawed by PC thinking and laws resulting from PC think! In such times this nutter would already have been carted off long ago!

      thys.reeder - 2012-07-24 10:35

      Correct: AR15 = Self loading rifle (Semi auto) M4= Select fire rifle (Full auto) High powered assault rifle is a boogey-man term invented by the anti-gun lobby.

      thys.reeder - 2012-07-24 10:39

      To answer the OPs question: I have a problem with it based on principle: The abuse of anything by a random lunatic does not justify the infringement of the liberties and rights of hundreds of thousands of individuals.

      allcoveredinNinjas - 2012-07-24 12:50

      Oh the differences , what do you need a gun like this for (ok-semi automatic rifle of medium power and it was the gun reported to be used) ? Its a circular argument saying if they all had guns this could have been stopped but if he didn't have the guns he couldn't commit the act. Next is the liberties issue , how is it that possession of an article thats sole purpose is to kill other human beings (thats a S&W M&P15)is fine but if controlled then a infringement of liberties but being in poccession of a joint , whose sole purpose is to get you high is a criminal offence and not an infringement of liberties. Having to apply for a license , pass the neccessary traing tests like a drivers test is not an infringement of liberties which we happily accept. Cars also have limitations and regulations they must before being alllowed on the roads.Whats good for motor vehicle regulation surely in principle applies to gun ownership.

      thys.reeder - 2012-07-24 20:20

      S&W M&P is .22lr. He used a AR15 in 5.56 NATO which is regarded as a light calibre. There are many applications for such a firearm, including self defence, shooting sports and hunting. Firearms are designed to fire a projectile by the use of burning propellant while giving the user the ability to control the direction and timing of said firing. They are inanimate objects, machines, and like any other machine they can be used in malice by a human. The crux of the matter is that hoplophobia is merely a symptom of a much bigger underlying problem. Tragedies such as this will happen again and again untill this problem is solved. Your logic is flawed in this case. As a firearms enthusiast flawed logic, half baked theories, psuedo intellectualism and half truths are not things I can afford to subscribe to.

      pierre.devilliers.9231 - 2013-01-19 12:46

      I absolutely agree, there is no real need for assault rifles in society (I grew up in SA when assault rifles were not allowed in private ownership). However one much be realistic here. The uproar on assault rifles is a bit political game playing. It is an easy target for banning, but AR-15’s contribute very little to crime. Also there are many other alternatives that are as deadly. Some of these deranged shooters have used AR-15’s, but they had other weapons too. An interesting case of the “Batman” shooter. If he did not use a high capacity carbine on an assault rifle, he could have killed much more people, as those jam easily, as did his on the night. I do think less guns in the US will reduce these massacres, but then a wider ban is needed. In short, banning the AR-15’s is like banning Lamborghini’s as they drive to fast and kill to many people, but then 99.999% of deaths are caused by other cars.

  • iceman196 - 2012-07-24 08:51

    typical looney, gung ho republican war monger attitude, Weapons of all sorts should be banned and this will never happen again but of course we all know the politicions are making big bucks from weapon sales, both legal and illegal

      pierrehenri.rossouw - 2012-07-24 10:14

      So ban all firearms and this will sieze?? Are you retarded? How many violent crimes get committed here in sa with illegal firearms???

  • Commodore.Bongani.Mahlangu - 2012-07-24 08:57

    How can these people talk about gun enforcement when the gun manufacturers are their main sponsors? America would collapse if they were to stop manufacturing and selling guns and ammunitions. No wonder their people are gun crazy.

  • martin.britchford.5 - 2012-07-24 08:57

    acess to firearms means even insane folks coulod get their hands on them, in sa we have been somewhat disarmed and our daily murder rate exceeds the massacre in the above story, its but a drop in the ocean compared to sa daily, PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, and situations like with this idiot with the ginger hair will happen again anyway, its realistic, its gonna happen, just as murder in a disarmed rsa will happen constantly

  • paul.oxley.520 - 2012-07-24 09:19

    More guns = less crime. If more (even ONE) good people had been armed they might have stopped this whackjob in his tracks as with the earlier attempted spree-shooter at the church! SA has it's own example of this when Charl V Wyk with his 5 shot 38 special stopped APLA at the St James Church massacre.

      thys.reeder - 2012-07-24 09:31

      The irony is that this cinema was a gun-free zone. Epic failure of society.

      mofstok - 2012-07-24 16:44

      I agree. The police cannot keep you safe, it is your responsibility to do so, and you cannot if you are unarmed.

  • Gavin - 2012-07-24 09:37

    trying to control guns in the US now, is pretty redundant, it's like trying to get the air you just breathed back out of your lungs. the price of true freedom under democracy is having to be wary of the nut job sitting next to you, who wants to go out in a blaze of glory. this situation is very sad, but at least they'll be able to take the orange haired nutjob's mind apart in and effort to understand why he did what he did. then take him out back and hang him.

  • jscholtz - 2012-07-24 09:41

    Pity nobody was armed in the cinema and fought back. There will always be nutjobs out there. We need to have enough good guys out there to outnumber the rotten apples and to take them down. Outlawing firearms has never reduced crime, nor made anyone safer - bad people always get guns, disarming the innocent only makes them easier victims. Something we should know all too well in SA.

  • pages:
  • 1