Guns used by Adam Lanza were his mother’s – legal age to own a gun in Connecticut is 21 – Gun laws worthless in this case

usa-flagAs you would expect, the anti second amendment left is crying for gun control after the latest loon Adam Lanza went on a shooting spree and killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School, including 20 kids. But stronger gun laws wouldn’t have meant a thing in this case. The guns used by Adam Lanza were registered to his mother (who he killed) and the legal age to own any kind of firearm in the state of Connecticut is 21 years of age. Adam Lanza was 20. So all you left wing anti second amendment zealots can cry all you want about tougher gun laws. They wouldn’t have made a difference at all in this case. Adam Lanza wasn’t even of age to own a gun in the first place, so these weren’t guns he purchased and then went on his massacre. He stole them from his mother.

Don’t worry though. This inconvenient truth will never be reported by the corrupt media anyway. Adam Lanza was yet another crazed nut case who was determined to do what he did no matter what the laws were.

No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)


  • ander35

    NO! If guns were completely illegal, there would still be all the guns that people own now- good and bad guys- how would you solve that problem?

    • left winger

      take the guns back…I’d come for your guns

      • ander35

        haha yeah right! So let me get this straight. Because this IDIOT left her guns out accessible to a known RETARD and sociopath you want us to give up our guns depsite the fact that millions of criminals will still have theirs? Good luck with that.

        • Nick

          “Because this IDIOT left her guns out accessible to a known RETARD and
          sociopath you want us to give up our guns depsite the fact that
          millions of criminals will still have theirs?”

          Took the words straight out of my fucking mouth….and keyboard.

    • Fred Fred

      If this woman hadn’t had those guns this would not have happened. He was only able to do it because he had EASY ACCESS to those guns. If his mother didn’t have those guns in the home, this might have not happened at all. Certainly the fact that he used a gun, made this horrible tragedy even worse. I would also like to add, that people who do this kind of thing usually only do so after displaying signs of mental and emotional instability. I’m surprised his mother felt safe hanging guns in the house. Also, why did she need an assault riffle???

      • Miss Cleo

        That’s nonsense. Just look at 22 children stabbed in China. Guns are a scapegoat for inadequate psychiatric help. There is always a rush to blame guns rather than the individual for their actions.

        • shelly

          ALL of those children in China are still ALIVE. So your comparison is nonsense.

      • Tony Cossio

        Rediculous! What, now there should be a law were you loack up your guns in a vault – what makes you think that was not the case here? So now we can’t have guns in our home? Ever read the Second Admendment or the Supreme Court’s decision about owning a gun in your home?

        • Jalisa

          The 13th Amendment used to say that
          every white person in America can own a black slave. They changed the Amendment. Time to change this one too.

          • Tony Cossio

            You are a liar and the people that agree with you idiots that believe everything you say as fact.

            You are wrong. The original 13th Amendment banned people receiving gifts from nobility from holding office. You are an uneducated twit.

  • chs

    if teachers were screened for owning guns before getting offered a job, schools would not be a factor in this story.

    • Tony Cossio

      So now we should have a ban of all teachers from having guns? Are you libtarded?

  • coneyislandmike

    It’s not about taking anybody’s right away to bear arms outright. It’s about control, people. So, the guns belonged to Lanza’s mom. WTF is she, a mother of two from small-town, CONNECTICUT, doing with a semiautomatic assault rifle and TWO other heavy duty pistols? Seems like she wasn’t looking for basic protection in her home, or trying to shoot some cans out in the field. She might have been a little off her rocker as well. And THAT’S how some laws might have prevented her from even owning a gun at all. So, I think the best control is about creating a screening process or some kind of psychological evaluation BEFORE the sale of a gun can be made. There are still a bunch of factors to consider, but I think that would be a good start.

    • Tony Cossio

      Most rifles are “semi-auto” you loon. You people all say the same thing, every gun is either a Semio-auto or Glock. And libtard, how would a screening process work when the Teacher was sane. You base her being off-her rocker because she owned three guns? Are you serious? Your argument is garbage. So if she did not have a gun, he would have just got it from somewhere else. What a delusional fantasy world you live in.

      • Cody Smith

        you dont know she was sane. only a proper screening process could evaluate that. are you a propper screening process tony? no? well then take the dicks out of your mouth before you try to make the argument against gun regulation. if there is strickter regulation than it becomes harder to obtain a gun if it was harder for lanza to obtain a gun than it would be less likely that he pull off a masacre therefore if there was strickter regulation than it would be less likely that he pull off a masacre. or do you not believe in basic logic either?

        • Tony Cossio

          Oh I see, you think you can flip the argument upside down and put the onus on the buyer to prove they are sane. Of course a few minutes on Google would turn out that Teachers due go through psychological testing as do most Government agencies. So you have no point. She passed screening already and Lanza still would have obtained an illegal gun. Next case.

  • Nicole T

    Hey Goon that writes this nonsense – even you had to specify “IN THIS CASE”. All ridiculous arguments you present aside, tougher gun laws would restrict access, and several more of these recent sprees would or could have been avoided!

  • Sean Maher

    BS …. I live in Canada , and don’t know any kindergarden teachers with 20 year old sons that own 2 handguns and an assault rifle, baffle me actually , so yes gun control would have prevented this whole tragic scene

    • Tony Cossio

      Yeah right Libtard. Tell me what magical “gun control law” would have looked like that could have prevented this? How about banning people under the age of 21…oops, that did not work. Try again and be specific.

    • ander35

      No it wouldn’t have, he used handguns, he never used the assault rifle.

  • Marco

    Let me correct you, since you appear to be another one of these 2nd amendment mouth-breathers. The 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the private ownership of guns. The right to bear arms is for “well-regulated militias”. So find another talking point.

  • Carlos T

    Had the result been different with different types of gun? – In Latin America assault rifles are restricted to military and police; for “self-defense” purposes shotguns, pistols and revolvers are allowed, but a special license is required. The license is granted when evidence of psicological fitness (seems fair anyone holding a gun capable of taking a life should be psicologically fit) and minimum gun and shooting training is completed (including maintainance and proper gun handling). I think extremes do not make sense, in this case a total prohibition on one side and total allowance on the other. But if it is true what I read in a US paper today, that more Americans die every year by guns within the US than at foreign wars, and facing the second or third tragedy of this type in the year calls for intelligent, smart and balanced approaches (including checking education, social and even health issues that may be triggering these type of sad events). PS. Though I am not from the US, my mother and grandmother was; and I politicaly I tend to the right.

    • ander35

      Yes and South America is also famous for right wing and left wing death squads taking over and slaughtering people.

  • Henson

    Um, I am not American, but I think what the anti gun people are saying that a person of ANY age should not have such an arsenal of weaponry. It is mystifying to billions across the world why a school teacher in an extremely affluent, safe town would possess so many guns

  • Jane Doe

    The age of the shooter isn’t what matters here. The mother shouldn’t have had those weapons either. Knowing her son was mentally ill, she should have kept those weapons well hidden and secured where he could not get a hold of them. And the fact that they were semi-automatics is even more disturbing. That’s not a self-defense weapon. That is a mass murder weapon. Saying that stricter gun laws would not have made a difference is not a fair statement at all. A lot more contributes to it than just the shooter’s age.

    • Freedom Fighter

      Would you like to know why you are stupid?

      “And the fact that they were semi-automatics is even more disturbing. That’s not a self-defense weapon. That is a mass murder weapon”

      Pistols are semi automatic as well (as are most guns), does that make them mass murder weapons? You don’t even know what semi automatic means, how could you have an intelligent conversation about guns?

  • Mikeo

    Why would the mother have these guns and why would her mentally unstable son have access to them. Seems like an awful decision.

    • GK

      I think this is one of the most important questions in regard to this tragedy.

  • Janet

    why would his mom or any civilian need semi-automatic weapons that are meant for mass killing? Not saying all guns should be banned–just automatic & semi-automatic assault rifles. They always seem to end up in the wrong hands.


    Is anyone thinking about where these shooting are occurring? They occur in “gun-free” zones. Think about that. “Gun-free” zones are places where only the bad guys have guns. The only way to meet armed violence from a disturbed person is with ARMED VIOLENCE. You can snivel all you want, but that is the truth. It might be an armed guard, it might be a CHL holder, it might be a shotgun in a locked save in the principal’s office. But don’t tell me that passing a new law taking guns away from good guys will somehow help these situations. Use your brains. This has been tried in places: Chicago. Mexico. How is that working? It is not.

  • high school student

    As a student in the law and justice academy in my high school, i believe that the second amendment applies to every citizen living in the united states but, the right of a person to actually own a firearm should only be allowed to people who are certified to actually own the gun. being in the right state of mind and is not a crazy sociopath. also even if the second amendment says “well-regulated militias”, when do we even have militias in society today? isnt that what police and military are here for? im not trying to say that we should take away our gun ownership rights, what im saying is that we should at least modify the second amendment. “the peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed”, but not unless the person is qualified for gun safety and in the right state of mind. just thought i add my opinion.