Romney says new gun laws would not "make a difference"

RENO, Nevada Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:07pm EDT

Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) shake hands with supporters who formed a receiving line after Romney delivered remarks about the shooting in Colorado during what was supposed to be a campaign event at Coastal Forest Products in Bow, New Hampshire July 20, 2012. REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi

Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) shake hands with supporters who formed a receiving line after Romney delivered remarks about the shooting in Colorado during what was supposed to be a campaign event at Coastal Forest Products in Bow, New Hampshire July 20, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Jessica Rinaldi

Related Topics

RENO, Nevada (Reuters) - 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 movie theater.

"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 skeptical 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.

(Editing by Alistair Bell and Mohammad Zargham)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (25)
anneshelby wrote:
Hey has nothing but GOP talking point to parrot. Like a robot on repeat mode.

Jul 23, 2012 6:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
anneshelby wrote:
It’s OK that this animal bought guns on the internet with no background checks and slaughtered people for a thrill? Willard is a rude, insensitive, know nothing monster.

Jul 23, 2012 6:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
KrisCraig wrote:
Romney is wrong, as usual.

This lunatic purchased his guns LEGALLY. If mandatory psychiatric screening and training were required, coupled with a longer waiting period, he might have been identified sooner or prevented from purchasing them legally.

So then he’d be forced to purchase them illegally. If he had, there’s a good chance he would’ve been caught by law enforcement before he had a chance to actually use them.

Either way, it’s a question of probabilities. Tougher regulations would have increased the probability that this would be prevented while not posing any meaningful infringement on the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms does not also give you the right not to be inconvenienced slightly during the process of obtaining one).

Jul 23, 2012 6:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.