A Fact Check on Rubio’s ‘No Gun Laws Would Have Prevented Recent High-Profile Mass Shootings’

Marco Rubio
FacebooktwitterredditmailFacebooktwitterredditmail
  • Marco Rubio said this: “None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them”
  • The Washington Post did a fact check on the 12 recent high-profile shootings
  • Conclusion: A “Geppetto” checkmark. Statements and claims that contain “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” will be recognized with our prized Geppetto checkmark.

“Facts” make absolutely NO difference to those with an anti-gun agenda, so even though Rubio was right, expect to hear more calls for “common-sense laws” that merely restrict our freedoms and serve to disarm the law-abiding.


Via The Washington Post:

A colleague pointed out this statement by Marco Rubio as a possible fact check, suggesting that it was almost certainly incorrect. It posed an interesting challenge, given the reams of data to examine.

The Fact Checker obviously takes no position on proposed gun-control laws. But given the attention of recent mass public shootings, is Rubio correct that none of the major shootings in recent years would have been prevented by new gun laws?

Rubio was not specific in his time frame — and a spokesman declined to elaborate — but for the purposes of this fact check we will go back as far as the Newtown shooting in 2012, which touched off the current gun debate.

The Facts

First of all, we should note that there is an unbridgeable gap in opinion about efficacy of various gun proposals, particularly regarding assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

“The common thread that binds most mass shootings is semiautomatic firearms with the ability to accept a high-capacity detachable ammunition magazine,” said Avery Palmer, communications director at the Violence Policy Center, which supports restrictions on guns. “These can range from assault rifles, pistols, and shotguns, to compact, high-capacity pistols marketed for concealed carry. Today’s gun industry has embraced increased lethality as its marketing lodestar, and one key element in reducing the occurrence and severity of mass shootings lies in ratcheting down the firepower in civilian hands.”

By contrast, gun-rights supporters argue that bans on certain weapons and large-capacity magazines would accomplish little. There are already more than 5 million AR-type rifles in circulation in the United States, ownership of which would have been grandfathered under proposed bans.

Read more here


Return to Home Page for more news

Check out our Facebook page: Conservative Daily

Please share this article if you like it!

FacebooktwitterredditmailFacebooktwitterredditmail

FacebooktwitterFacebooktwitter

1 Comment on "A Fact Check on Rubio’s ‘No Gun Laws Would Have Prevented Recent High-Profile Mass Shootings’"

  1. Create more gun-free zones, you’ll get higher death cutons. For the life of me, I don’t understand this type of statement. Here in Canada we have a firearm ownership rate of roughly 15% (1 out of 6 households own a gun), last year we had 170 homicides by shooting.In the US, where the ownership rate is closer to 45%, last year there were 8583 homicides by shooting.Anyway, I’m off to do my grocery shopping, and yes, I’m going to leave my door unlocked when I leave the house.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.