Question of the Day: What If The Sandy Hook Shooter Had Been A Terrorist?

I am plenty fed-up with the post-Sandy Hook push for civilian disarmament. What does one have to do with the other? Clearly, restricting legal gun ownership will do nothing to stop a madman from enacting his homicidal fury. Clearly, an armed defense is the best defense against a spree killer. Or someone with a bomb strapped to his back. Yes there is that . . .

With all this talk about denying mentally ill maniacs guns to kill kids the country has lost sight of the threat of terrorism. It’s not for nothing All the President’s Men delete the Fort Hood massacre from their list of unconscionable “mass shootings.”

Lest we forget, Muslim terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 29. So . . .what if Adam Lanza had been a member of Al-Qaeda?

I’ll tell you what: he wouldn’t have been acting alone; the death toll would have been much higher. And we sure as hell wouldn’t be talking about civilian disarmament. Nor should we be. Am I wrong?

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

54 Responses to Question of the Day: What If The Sandy Hook Shooter Had Been A Terrorist?

  1. avatarBadjujuu says:

    Remember. Navy Seals didn’t kill bin Laden. Guns killed him.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Actually, it was Marfan Syndrome. Kidney failure. December 2001. You mean you didn’t know that was THEATER to rescue Drone Killa’s approval ratings?

      • avatarDavid W. says:

        I really doubt it was theater, from what I understood it took months of pleading from the cabinet, military officials, his wife, the Clintons, just to get him to okay it. I figure that’s a lie and in truth the military just went and did it without permission and Obama mocked up some photos when it went well to show him as a “leader”.

        • avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

          Sadly, the tail has wagged the dog on the “bin Laden killing”.

          The only thing that is factual about that raid is that a Black Ops stealth helicopter crashed. Everything else is a smoke screen.

          And this is coming from an Army Ranger whose father and uncle were both Special Forces.

    • avatarDirk Diggler says:

      I thought Obama killed Osama?

  2. avatarSilver says:

    The mass media and politicians would be calling for us to understand and tolerate him.

  3. avatarJoseph says:

    Excellent question. Funny how the Anointed One has ‘forgotten’ to mention Fort Hood, along with the Media Propaganda Ministries of course. School terrorism is on the table for Al Qaeda, you can take that to the bank.

    • avatarjaekelopterus says:

      You mean the Fort Hood where EVERYONE was carrying assault rifles and yet still failed to prevent a mass killing? That one?

      • avatarInBox485 says:

        FLAME DELETED Fort hood was on a domestic military base. ALL domestic military bases are disarmed except for the handful of MP’s and civilian LEO’s. It is essentially a gun free zone similar to schools. And guess who made it that way… Clinton. So you can thank Clinton for the fact that members of the most powerful military on earth can’t have weapons on their own bases.

        • avatarBLAMMO says:

          Didn’t get the sarcasm?

          The notion that there are armed service men and women all over a military base has been parroted by the media.

        • avatarInBox485 says:

          Guess not. Apologies.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          It’s not just domestic military bases. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan if you weren’t doing force protection you didn’t have loaded gun.

  4. avatarswhit says:

    I think the push would be far worse, because those in favor of very strict gun control would have the banner of national security to wave around. The Fort Hood incident would not look isolated anymore.

  5. avatarChris Mallory says:

    A few lengths of chain, a handful of padlocks, and $15 in gasoline would have been all Lanza needed.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      The Sandy Hook School killer (I refuse to type his name) attacked a classroom of first graders — he could have easily killed all of them with a three foot piece of galvanized water pipe available at just about any hardware store for $4.

      This is why parents, teachers, and staff carrying concealed handguns are necessary for real world security. Utah has it right. (Utah’s concealed carry laws have absolutely no “off-limits” locations that I am aware of with the possible exception of a prison or court room.)

  6. avatarWC says:

    “I am plenty fed-up with the post-Sandy Hook push for civilian disarmament. What does one have to do with the other? Clearly, restricting legal gun ownership will do nothing to stop a madman from enacting his homicidal fury. Clearly, an armed defense is the best defense against a spree killer.”

    There have been NO spree killings in Australia since they enacted their gun control laws. That’s a pretty big correlation.

    • avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

      I am not sure one can make that *correlation*. Statistically speaking, this is *coincidence* and not *correlation* or let alone *causation*.
      Read something about that on factcheck.org recently. Also, that piece mentioned something about difficulties in doing international comparisons…

    • avatarAK says:

      Except for that one guy who burned 15 people to death: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Fire

    • avatarswhit says:

      Australia’s gun laws are really reactionary. Their tight controls on pistols were a result of a mentally ill Chinese foreign exchange student (not even an Australian citizen) killing two people in 2002. Australian political culture is way different than here; what may have worked for them probably won’t cut it here. Only a little over 5% of Australians own firearms due to that country’s very urban character (most Aussies live in or around one of the major cities). Gun control is very strong and popular there, even political Conservatives support it (like many law and order oriented US Conservatives did before the 70s).

    • avatarThomas Paine says:

      hey, but they kick our butt in burglaries, rapes, and assaults. that’s cool.

      look #1 in total crime victims at 30% of the population:
      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims

      fun stuff.

    • avatarWildWest says:

      But in Australia there has been a drastic increase in violent crime since the firearms ban went into effect. Mass killing events are rare. How can any civilized people permit an increase in murder, rape, assault, armed robbery which are too common already and always increase with gun bans in exchange for the hope of ending rare events?

    • avatarScott Henrichs says:

      Fantastic! And yet you fail to mention that their violent crime rate doubled after banning guns. So while your odds of being killed in an extremely rare mass shooting might have gone down even more you are now twice as likely to be raped, mugged, or have your house invaded. That right there is a prime example of liberal logic.

    • avatarWC says:

      I think you have missed my point. When someone calls their site the TRUTH about guns, I have no qualms pointing out mistruths in their writings. When it comes to madmen/spree killers, one thing has been 100% effective: Australia’s gun ban. I am not saying that ban did not have negatives, or that it would work here. I’m saying that the quoted passages were clearly untruthful.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      WC,

      Think about it. Australia’s population is 1/13 the U.S. population. That alone tells us to expect any event in Australia would happen much less frequently … about 13 times less frequently. Thus where the U.S. has had roughly one mass shooting every two years, you could expect something like one mass shooting every 26 years in Australia.

      Culture, mental health care, and physical health care are also substantially different in Australia. Those factors will also impact the frequency of such rare events significantly.

  7. avatarO.E says:

    We share a carriage on the same train of thought.

    • avatarO.E says:

      They will not correlate a nation of pacifists with that of gun free zones, yet.

      This problem is free-range.

      Mohamed Merah is another personality that is ostensibly edited from the list of spree killers that were afforded operational success due to the poor response plannings of the French public & armed guard.

  8. avatarInBox485 says:

    Putting aside the absolute BS that there are no spree killings in gun free society, I care little for the headline grabbing killing sprees compared to the daily victim violence (that violence which excludes those willfully and mutually engaged in ongoing violence as in gangs, cartels, etc.), and in EVERY case where gun control was enacted, this type of violence has sky rocketed. Not the least of these examples is schools themselves which have taken the brunt of the US’s experimentation with gun control.

  9. avatarmountocean says:

    I looked up Beslan the week of Newtown. Incomprehensibly worse. I am very thankful we have gone 11 years since 9/11 without anything major happening. But it can only be a matter of time.

  10. avatarإبليس says:

    Republicans would want armed guards at schools and Democrats would blame the NRA. Obama would appropriate each side’s most popular measures and take credit for them. Wait, that sounds familiar…

  11. avatarmark~ says:

    “Question of the Day: What If The Sandy Hook Shooter Had Been A Terrorist?”

    They would be trying to take away other civil liberties in addition to the RTKABA.

  12. avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    No, you’re not wrong.

    One should NB that Islamists have used the mass shooting technique as a terror attack before. It is highly instructive to read detailed reports of the 2008 Mumbai, India, attacks.

    Those 10 terrorists killed 166 people over a period of three days, and there were another five people killed on the ship they hijacked to get over the sea to Mumbai undetected. The terrorists shot up four different locations, gathered groups of hostages and then started blowing stuff up.

    India hung the only surviving terrorist last November, to the usual hue and cry from the anti-death-penalty types.

    And, of course, you have the Beslan hostage crisis, which you reference above in the video.

    • avatarNot Anon in CT For Long says:

      Sure, but unlike “our” domestic spree killers, they don’t off themselves at the first sign of armed resistance. Rather, they engage, kill as many as they can and then try to blow up or burn the place.

      As awful as a Lanza is, his type is trying to work out their rage by killing people – so while highly organized within narrow confines, they don’t really go for the maximum body count like the Chechens or others. Actually, I think it’s fair to say that the Chechens are the current masters at leveraging limited resources into maximum bodycount. Of course, the cack-handedness of Russian and other caucasus-area security forces help.

  13. avatarAccur81 says:

    There is no longer a need to attack the United States – liberalism will destroy it from within. Big government, big control, and crushing debt are coming our way.

  14. avatarBeninMA says:

    Since it would be seen as an act of war, I think compromise would be more likely — Gun control + Shipping a new batch of Muslim terrorist suspects to Gitmo. Heck, neocons might even get a new ground war out of the whole deal. With those dynamics, the second amendment might be even more at risk.

  15. avatarMarc G says:

    Forget terrorism. We are already at war on our southern border. The cartels and the anti’s are our biggest threat against the American way of life. I can’t believe how little this is mentioned. In regards to the 2a, we NEED to keep our right to bear arms to fight against foreign invasion. The only thing that keeps some of the ranchers along the border alive is that they have a rifle on their horse and a pistol on their hip.

  16. avatarLance says:

    Or look in Russia you cant own guns but the worlds worst school massacre happened in 2004 in Russia. Armed Muslim terrorist armed with real Assault Rifles and bombs attacked a school in gun free Russia. Prof enough that gun bans are total bullcrap on stopping murders of any type.

  17. avatarJared says:

    I hate the fact that just because he is white, the term “terrorist” is thrown out the window. He is a terrorist by every definition.

    • avatarAnon says:

      Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology, to create…well, terror, particularly for political reasons. We don’t know yet (and may never) this kid’s motive, political or otherwise, but there is definitely terror resulting.
      I get where you were going, RF, but the title of this article is ridiculous.

      • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        Exactly. I didn’t want to get into the morass of “who is a terrorist and who isn’t,” but since you’ve broached the issue, I need to chime in here.

        A terrorist could have all the guns and explosives in the world at his disposal, and if he shoots up a school (eg) and there is no press… he’s failed.

        A terrorist needs a hysterical tone from the mass media to achieve his ends. Without a hysterical, braying press, they’ve accomplished nothing more or less than a common criminal.

        This is why OBL went after the WTC. It’s in the middle of the most dense media environment in the world. This is why European terrs strike in major cities. The terrorist is a political animal, and he knows that he needs more ingredients than mere bullets and bombs to accomplish his goals.

    • avatarNot Anon in CT For Long says:

      No – Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, because he killed a lot of innocent people, and was also trying to advance an agenda by spreading terror. Lanza was just trying to take as many innocents into death with him. It’s not a racial thing. The Weather Underground (white) and Black Panthers (black) were both terrorist groups because they espoused an ideology. I guess a guy like Charles Manson straddles the line, but Lanza was not a terrorist by any conventional definition.

  18. avatarNazgul says:

    In answer to the question of the day, the end result would have been the same, if not worse.

  19. avatarNazgul says:

    In answer to the question of the day, the end result would have been the same – the media and the public morality police would still be demanding disarmament.

  20. avatarmatt says:

    Whats up with the article picture of a pedo?

  21. avataruncommon_sense says:

    By the way this is why I carry a minimum of 45 rounds of ammunition around with me. Imagine the outcome of the Beslan School attack if even 5 parents and/or staff were carrying concealed handguns and 45 rounds of ammunition each? There almost certainly would have been casualties … but I highly doubt there would have been hundreds of casualties.

  22. avatarkevhead says:

    Good question. Here’s a different answer. I’m predicting that the govt/media will next seek to define most lawful gun owners as domestic terrorists. It’s incredibly obvious from recent incidents that the press is already a tool of the govt. NBC can’t wait to repay the admin for looking the other way while David Gregory knowingly, publicly broke the law. The previous Sec of State now works for CBS. The govt will define most of us as terrorists and the MSM will help to confirm it. Just watch the video that was posted here a few days ago.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q2riOiBaZrg

    Obama will seek to turn the tables on those acusing him of breaking his oath by saying he is upholding his oath to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC. A new, emotionally based term will emerge in the near future encompassing most of the people that would post here. This site itself could be viewed as a militant group of gun owners who meet regularly on the internet and often badmouth LEOs and troops. All the talk about what we would do if they come for our guns, and what it would take to start shooting can easily be turned against us along with the photos of our big gun collections and the many thosands of rounds of ammo we use for training. With all the hits this blog gets from across the country what if RF took an active anti govt stance? What if he advocated armed insurrection under certain circumstances instead of just threatening to move to TX? Is this site a loosely organized, internet militia? Don’t think for a second that there are not people working behind closed doors right now seeking ways to use the media to popularize a new definition of domestic terrorists that encompasses all of us. It’s all about control. They already control the first amendment rights. Like Ralph has pointed out the 1A is a fiction of the past. Now they will use it to make the 2A an element of our barbaric past.

    A final thought similar to the John Ross novel. Based on what I’ve outlined here what kind of haul do you think the feds would get if they simultaneously raided the homes of all the TTAG writers while they were at the SHOT show and took them into custody at said show,which, BTW was a gun free zone for personal carry? How would the writers respond to a quiet knock on the hotel room door after a long day of work and a few beers? What would it look like if they paraded all the scary guns and stockpiles of ammo in front of the media along with selected articles and quotations from this blog?

    We know it’s not about hunting and sport, but no one that actually holds office will address the real purpose of The Second. When they do, watch out. Does our proper interpretation of the 2A as an affirmation of our right to armed resistance to tyranny make us a domestic threat to this govt?
    It’s coming. I hope I’m wrong.

  23. avatarJT says:

    “What If The Sandy Hook Shooter Had Been A Terrorist?”

    As far as I am concerned, he WAS a terrorist. He may not have been part of a larger organization but that doesn’t make him less of one. All mass shooters are terrorists, since their objective is to kill people and cause terror, and they should be treated as such.

  24. avatarKent Thompson says:

    Words have meaning. Let us not conflate “shooter” with “killer.” I am a shooter. I am not a killer. That stinking Adam Lanza punk was a killer. We should use our words so as not to lump us regular people in with the likes of criminals. “Active shooter” should be removed from our vocabulary.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.