Would Gun Control Have Prevented Mass Murders at Connecticut Elementary School

Mother holds young child who escaped murderous rampage of lone gunman, who killed 20 children and six adults at school

On Friday, December 14th, 20 innocent children walked into their schoolroom class at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and before noon, Adam Lanza, 20, had gunned them and his mother down, according to Fox News sources. Recently, this horrific scene has been played out far too many times in malls, movie theaters, and at universities. This time, the unthinkable has occurred. The innocence of childhood was stripped away by this lone gunman, and left a town, and a nation in mourning.

Yet, in the midst of this very tragic day, the routine calls for tighter gun control laws have again raised its ugly head. While there is no reported connection to alleged shooter, Adam Lanza and illegal firearms, the calls are spreading, as they did earlier in the week, when another masked gunman entered a Portland, Oregon area mall, and shot and killed two victims.

According to Fox News, a U.S. Justice Department source, indicated that weapons used in the murderous assault, including a .223-caliber rifle, had been legally registered to the shooter’s mother. There is a serious problem in this nation, but with this tragedy and the one on Tuesday in Portland, Oregon, it was not the gun, but the stolen weapons that was the problem.

In a nation where there are over 50 million legal gun owners, there is no clear reason how the outbursts of violence by mentally unstable individuals whose weapon of choice is a gun, can be used as a rationale to curtail constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights. The two are not even logically synonymous.

Gun control laws that are not strict enough did not fail these families who are undergoing this very grievous period of mourning for their dead loved ones. What may have failed, even though speculative, is whatever social service system that did not intervene or pay attention to domestic issues that were occurring inside the home of the dead shooter.

The answers to what motivated Adam Lanza, to head into the school where his mother taught and into the very room where she was a teacher and open fire on precious little kids, shows anger that was perhaps motivated by revenge, or some other deep unsettling motive. But a gun control law is not the culprit in this tragic scenario.

How much tighter should the state of Connecticut’s laws be, if the weapons were purportedly registered to the shooter’s mother? The State of Connecticut gun laws specifies in part:
“It is unlawful to possess any other firearm by a person who has been convicted of a felony. It is unlawful to possess a handgun if convicted as a delinquent of a serious juvenile offense which includes.”

The mother did not appear to be a felon, nor was she a convicted delinquent. She was a teacher in an elementary school, who was according to published reports from Fox News, murdered by her own son, who stole the weapons from her home. She was a victim not of a right-wing fringe element. She was murdered by her son.

There is no gun control legislation in America or on Earth that will prevent an unbalanced person from picking up a knife, gun or any other weapon and assaulting or killing another human being. A case in point was O.J. Simpson, who used a knife to murder his estranged wife and her friend. Knives were not outlawed as a result.

Guns are not the problem, and guns do not murder innocents. People who are determined to harm or murder another person is as old as the bible, with Cain murdering his younger brother Abel. One clear solution which atheists and their fellow liberal secular travelers avoid is, bringing God back into the schools, and into the public discourse.

People of faith can and should draw the line in the sand and stand up for a nation that does not allow murderers to get a free pass for their behavior by blaming heinous actions on a gun. Instead examine the failed social system which disarms children of their access to prayer in the schools, and practice of biblical respect and other behavioral principles which guided America’s founders.

The nation should look inward, and truly examine how can each person begin a new narrative, which does not abandon God and Christ by replacing them with material gift giving. The reason for the season is not Santa in a sleigh, but Jesus Christ, the son of God, in a manger.

Whatever set this young man on a dangerous downward spiral, may have been avoided, if he and those around him could have heard and notified authorities to whatever inner turmoil challenge he was facing.

There is no excuse ever for murdering children or any other person. Gun control laws would not have protected society from his inner demons. In fact, by disarming a nation of its constitutional right to protection, its citizens increasingly will become victims of more murderous mayhem, violence and death.

This, America will never permit!

( click to let me know what you think )

Tags: , , , ,

Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • HuntingMoose



    Could have prevented this horror if the mother-teacher was allowed, no required to bring her gun to the classroom.

    protection is key. Bad people will always have a weapon, stolen or not, to wreak havoc

    we need laws that require responsible people to have a gun to protect themselves and those in their surroundings.

    And may be some additional laws to strengthen parenting and outlawing split up



    • http://twitter.com/JimForbes_Pasco ? Jim ?

       The article title poses the question "Would Gun Control Have Prevented . . ."
      There can only be one answer since CT already has VERY strict Gun Controls in place!
      That answer is – – – –  NO!

      • HuntingMoose

        You miss my point. My ‘yes’ is that the change should go in the opposite direction of what all those disgusting libs are talking and salvating over

  • conservativemama

    I grew up in the rural South where boys went hunting and drove pick-up trucks with gun racks on them.  Where most people had hunting rifles.  Not my family, but we were transplants from another culture.

    No one ever thought to use those guns against humans.  It wasn’t even joked about.  People understood and respected what guns could do.

    It’s just so tragic.  You lose a child and life loses all meaning.  You’re drowning and you can’t ever imagine breaking the surface to breathe once again.

    • Betsey_Ross

      It goes without saying that owning and using a gun requires responsibility, but apparently Conservatives understand that concept.  Progressives probably do too, but twist the concept to make it fit their agenda.  That is what they always do and the stupid and uninformed always fall for it.  We have to find a way to combat this political correctness and do it fast.  They think we are lying when we try to set the record straight.  This tragedy was very, very bad and it will continue until we Conservatives find a voice to over ride the tragedy of the situation. 

      Why aren’t parents demanding security for their little ones?  Locking the doors in schools is not the answer.  These innocents are vulnerable and just stopping the bad guys at the door only works for a few seconds.  I think after 30 years of this problem we now see that nothing we have done so far works.  Since Columbine this has escalated into a problem that only gets solutions that won’t and haven’t worked.  It is a cultural problem that needs to be dealt with, but so far gun control and gun free zones have not and will never work. 

  • 01_Explorer_01

    We have a problem with a society and it is not related to weapons.  Morality and lack of god in peoples lives is just a tip of the iceberg to the problems we are having. 

    • unseen1

      No they  are not  the "tip of the iceberg"   they are the reason  for all the problems.    Nature  abhors a  vacumm  when you  take  God and  Morals out of  a society  the society  will replace it  with  something  else.   That something else  is  causing unintended  consequences  in the  society   which requires more and more  government intervention   to  do what GOd  and morals  use to  do.    

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Meyer/100001861954200 Jim Meyer

    When you are dealing with criminals or, as in the case of the school gunman in Connecticut today, sociopaths, by definition you are dealing with individuals who have no respect whatsoever for law or authority of any kind.  This man had no respect for the simple Biblical dictum, "You shall not kill".  There is no logical reason to believe that he would have had any more respect for a law that said he couldn’t have a gun.  And Connecticut’s laws regulating firearms are among the strictest in America already.  Obviously, gun control is not the answer here, and it is naive to the point of being dangerous to believe that it is.

    • Perfectly Frank

      Actually, Jim, the Commandment is "Thou shalt not murder."

      That distinction changes everything, including issues of self defense.

  • TSM_Admin

    Yes, Kevin, I agree with article.

  • http://lenbilen.com/ Lennart Bilén

    Scotland has very restrictive gun control laws. Norway jas very restrictive gun control laws. Finland has very restrictive gun control laws. Evil still happens.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1371057130 George Van Ecken

      On the other hand, Switzerland mandates that each household with a male over the age of 18 (or 21?) must posess a firearm in that home.  Strangely enough , that country has one of the lowest percentage of gun-related crimes in the world.

      • John B. Hefmier

        Military service is compulsary in Switzerland, and is particularly done through Reservist duty.  This is one of the main reasons it has been able to maintain it’s neutrality over the centuries in even European conflicts.  It is believed that Hitler did not even bother to invade Switzerland in his attempt to reunite all "German-speaking peoples", before the war, for that very reason. Hitler feared if he invaded the country (or Lichtenstein in which the Swiss are heavily associated with) his forces would enounter very armed resistance and be driven back into Germany, in order for the Swiss to maintain their sovereignity.

      • HuntingMoose

        Not strange. It is social control, something that libs have been tearing apart in this country.

        The mandatory 2 week (or whatever it is) every year or so is a sanity check for citizens on citizens. The towns are small and everyone knows everyone. Bad things can happen here too but it is much much less likely to occur

  • celestiallady

    My sister was killed by a car driven by a drunk driver. Did cars get banned?  People kill people. In China a man killed many with a knife. are knives banned? People kill people!!!!!

    • http://twitter.com/JimForbes_Pasco ? Jim ?

      At Ft Hood a Muslim killed because of his religion!
      Let’s ban Muslims? Let’s ban religion?

      • Freempg

        Pay no attention to the truth behind the curtain. Ft Hood was work place violence.

      • unseen1

        ideas  have  killed more  people   then anything else in the world.   You  can’t ban ideas  but  you  can insure a  free marketplace for them so  other competing  ideas  can battle the  evil ones. 


      • Betsey_Ross

        Do not equate Islam and religion in the same sentence.  Their religion is all balled up into one nasty, hateful way of life.  It has nothing to do with what we all know religion to be in our language or experience. 

    • Freempg

      Sorry to hear that celestial, it must have been devastating to lose your sister.

      • celestiallady

        Thank you Free – it was and still is the most horrible time in my life. I was only 20 and she 21.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Legge/100000581859671 William Legge

      Or do they talk about banning Alcohol since a great percentage of fatal car accidents involve alcohol? (In 2008 11,773 fatalities involving alcohol) more recently 32 % of all car fatalities have alcohol involved? How about the many fatalities caused by drunken illegals. hundreds over the past decade, why not ban illegals? Liberals sympathy is selective and often hypocritical.

  • jaazee

    A gunman killed his mother, took her weapons, went to the school she worked as a Kindergarten teacher and proceeded to slaughter six adult staff and 20 innocent children 5 or 6 years old. Most of us shed a tear, looked at pictures of our children, and said a prayer. Some saw an "opportunity" to push their political "gun control" agenda while the bodies of those babies were still in the school.
    The problem of mentally ill people killing has nothing to do with the choice of weapons. Oklahoma was a weapon created with just fertilizer and diesel fuel, The 9/11 attackers used "carpet cutters", and killed 3,000!  
    Mexico has one of the strictest gun control laws on the planet, but they don’t stop the Cartels from getting military grade weapons, and the control vast areas of the country.




  • http://twitter.com/JimForbes_Pasco ? Jim ?

    "Would Gun Control Have Prevented Mass Murders at Connecticut Elementary School"

    NO – Not a chance. We already have many 1000s of ‘gun control’ laws and regulations. Did THEY help? NO A 1000 more ‘controls’ won’t help!

    • HuntingMoose

      What if the principal was allowed to bring her gun and was a trained shooter?

      Nobody mentions the obvious: the size of this massacre could have been prevented with gun laws requiring the arming of people to they can defend themselves.

      We require people to have healthcare. Now is the time to also require people to arm themselves so they can defend. The gun laws need to be adjusted with this requirement.

      • Betsey_Ross

        Yep.  I like the way you think.  I just boggles my mind to think that terrorists are already going to school on this incident.  We have a president that wants to disarm us and the terrorists are planning where to go next.  You know they will hit all of these vulnerable places because they want to take out as many as possible and run up the death count.

  • arcman46

    This country is sick.  Most cancers eat the cells from the inside out.  We are suffering from a cancer in this country that we need to defeat.  That cancer is the Left.  40-50 years of Leftist thinking and indoctrination have led us to this moment.  Take the black family structure, for instance, since most on the Left assert they stand for African-Americans, unlike us racist conservatives.  The Left has all but destroyed the black family.  Millions of unwed mothers, live in poverty, with children, who have no fathers.  Millions of black men, are imprisoned for everything from drugs to murder.  It has been proven time after time that children are more successful within a 2 parent household.  It has also been proven that children in 2 parent households are less likely to be poor. 

    Every thing from the print media, to the entertainment industry, has bombarded children with the idea that is OK to engage in premarital sex.  There are no longer any consequences to having sex with anyone and everyone that you want to have sex with.  Girl get pregnant:  Abortion on demand; don’t even have to tell your parents about it.  The boys, want sex, the girls, want love or something else.  Everything gets cheapened.  And even though no one mentions it, there are, I’m sure, mental and physical consequences to abortion on demand.  I sure as heck know that there are spiritual ones. 

    The person who did this had his own reasons for doing it.  He was from a broken home.  One of millions out there.   He lived in a Left leaning state.  He, like the Portland shooter, the Aurora shooter, and the Fort Hood shooter, had a soft target.  He knew he could walk into that school and slaughter as many people as he had ammo on him because there wasn’t going to be anyone in there with a gun, that could shoot back.  Anytime I see a "gun-free" zone, I turn around and go the other direction.  I would do this if I were not a CCW holder.  You might as well paint a great big bullseye on yourself.

    • unseen1

      slavery  destroyed the Black family  structure in AMerica.   The left  is simply  returning  to that time.   Its  sad many in the black community  don’t see that..

      • hrandym

         Actually, slavery promoted black family life.  It was most beneficial to the slaveowner that slave families propagate.  In addition, slaves were the agricultural machinery of the South, purchased from the North who bought them as slaves in Africa, bringing them to the US in the most inhuman conditions imaginable.  Farmers don’t abuse machinery.  Also, slaves were like all other humans, some good, some bad.  Is there anything new in life?  Have I missed something?

        The black family as well as the white family suffered during the so-called Reconstruction in the South.  That word, ‘reconstruction’.  Haven’t I heard a synonym used lately by our current Federal Government?

        • unseen1

          funny  slaves  could not legally  marry.   On big planations  mothers  were  required   to  go  back to  work  quickly after giving  birth maybe  running  from the fields to feed their  infants  during short  breaks.  Once  children  were  weaned  they  too  were put to work   leaving little  time for  "parents"  to raise their  children   in  a fmaily  life style.   the youngest  children  were  watched over  by  one  slave  during the day as  the  mother and father  worked the  fields  from sun up  until  sundown.   Slavery  was  evil  in  every  form  and  it  certainly  destroyed  any  semblance of  family  life that  we   think  about  when the term family is  mentioned.   Fathers were property  and  had to  put their owners wishes  above their  children and "wife"s  interests.   Mothers  had to  do the same.   Even  children  were required to  but  the  wishes  of  thier owners  ahead  of  thier mothers or fathers.   Meaning  that  children  were raised how the owners  thought proper  not  how the parents thought  proper.  anyone that thinks  slavery  "promoted  famliy life"  doesn’t  understand the horrors of  slavery. 


          • hrandym

            Pretty unrealistic.  During the 1800’s, EVERYONE worked long hours and many had to travel to work, not easy in those days.  Even when I was a child on my grandfather and father’s dairy farm, work was seven days per week, no vacation, etc.  Extra work on Sunday when what labor we were able to hire didn’t work.  My sister and I cleaned the barn and fed the cows in between milkings on Sunday, and other holidays.  Of course I was fortunate to be in the company of my parents and grandparents, and so were the slaves with their families.  Where did you get your information, ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’?  Harriet Beecher Stowe didn’t know crap about slavery.  She had a great imagination.  She should have written about the horrors of the slave trade from Africa to the ports of New England.  Once on the plantation (farm), slaves were well cared for since they were expected to work, and as such their ability to work was important: they had cost their ‘owners’ considerable capital when they were purchased in the North.  I won’t go on: it is pointless.

        • Betsey_Ross

          What destroyed the Black family was Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and the Feminist movement.  Have as many babies as possible without any responsibility on the man, because the Big Daddy government will pay and pay and pay for everything.  No father in the house with no responsibility for his child(children) and you get what we have now.  Huge taxes, no one working, no one teaching what only a responsible man can teach.  A family functions best with one mother and one father.  We’ve been brainwashed with same sex marriage, single motherhood made into victim status, abortion, and multiculturalism.  We all know none of this works for a healthy society and yet we defend it all.  What slavery didn’t accomplish we had the Progressives to finish us off.

          • hrandym

             So true.  Thank you for your astute observation.  The black population in this nation has had its opportunities to advance themselves constantly blunted by Federal pandering.  That’s no way to help people become independent and establish self confidence in themselves.  Some blacks, to their credit, have avoided the tide and built successful lives at all income levels.  I feel sort of bad about the new South Carolina Senator having his race made such a prominent factor when it shouldn’t be a factor at all.  I hope he can withstand the embarrassment.  When will we grow up?

  • http://www.facebook.com/IsabelM.Matos Isabel Matos

    How incredibly odd (not!) that the media wants no discussion of those killed in Benghazi, but has no problem or can’t shut up about a school massacre because they want to exploit the tragedy to repugnantly push a political talking point and agenda.

    • HuntingMoose


      Interesting point. What does this killing and benghazi have in common?

      In both cases liberals prevented those under attack to be armed or able to defend.

      The ambassador was denied protection! As were the teachers not allowed to bring their gun or had the principal a gun ready to defend

      • http://www.facebook.com/IsabelM.Matos Isabel Matos

        Even greater point.  Thanks!

  • korn8131

    For what it’s worth;

    The left-leaning state with "gun-free" zone are inviting sociopaths who have no respect whatsoever for law or authority of any kind, to do as they please. Until these states address reality, this unwanted loss of life will continue. To protect our most valued treasure from God, can only happen with equal force. There is no reason for this type of crime to continue. Do away with "gun-free" zones and arm certain people in the zone. I have a zone that is protected 24-7 with a Remington 1100 (semi-auto) 26″ barrel with five double 00buck shot shells. What nice about this weapon is you don’t have to be a sharp shooter. All you need to do is point and pull the trigger.

  • 08hayabusa

    This blood bath in Connecticut wasn’t due to the 20-year-old murderer having guns,  IT WAS DUE TO THE TEACHERS AND STAFF NOT HAVING GUNS.  

    It is time to have background checked – armed guards at Public schools.

    • HuntingMoose

      No armed guards but make gun ownership mandatory for teachers. Put a lockbox in the pricipal office and when a lunatic attacks, you can defend yourself

      • Betsey_Ross

        A locked up gun isn’t a useful one.

        • HuntingMoose

          true, it is less optimal. best would be just to carry. that may have saved the principals life as well since we now know that he shot himself once he realized guns were trained on him.

  • http://sonic.net/~ckelly/Seekay/mtbwelcome.htm RepackRider

    The ancients sacrificed children to their gods.

    We worship guns.  If you don’t believe me, look around 

    I don’t think that this religion will ever change.

    You have a Second amendment right to a gun just as you have a First
    Amendment right to any deity you choose, as long as you recognize what a
    terrible god you worship.

    Spare me the Second Amendment invective.  I am an Army veteran (E-5, Honorable) who has not pulled a trigger since 1967.

    • unseen1

      I’m  sure there is a point  to that  but  I can’t  find  it.  


      • hrandym

         Neither could I.

    • hrandym

       You may worship guns, I don’t. I do believe in the use them when appropriate.  They are a tool, no different from a hammer or saw.  Our world would not be safe without them.  Alan Ladd put it well in Shane when he said, "A gun is a tool, no better or worse than the man handling it."

  • unseen1

    You may  suspect O.J of  a crime  but he was found  innocent  by  ajury of  his  peers.   Writing as a "fact"  that he  is a killer is  no better than  what the MSM   does  when they  push a narrative they  want to push.  sloppy  journalism.

    • hrandym

       Hey, he was GUILTY.  We all know the trial was BS, and it was racially slanted.  Remember what Eric Holder said, that he wouldn’t prosecute the blacks accused of voter intimidation.  Are we connecting yet?

      • colint

        See my comment to Unseen. Anyone who WATCHED the trial and says OJ is guilty is a RACIST.  Most people base there opinion on what the talking heads had decided before the defence put on its case. Like with Sarah, most people base their opinion on what they are told by the LSM

        • hrandym

           I watched the trial.  You are the racist, in that you have decided innocence/guilt on the basis of race as did the jury in the OJ case.  I was always curious about OJ’s escape in his white bronco (I vaguely remember, but I think that was what it was).  Didn’t you find that curious?  Never mind, you have your conclusions and I won’t interfere with them.  You probably also believe that Eric Holder is innocent in ‘Fast and Furious’, and that he was justified in not trying black voter intimidation.  Bless you.

      • unseen1

        in your mind  he  was guilty.   Many others  believe  it  also.   That does  not make it  true  anymore then it makes it  untrue.   He may  be guilty.   He may be innocent.   And that’s the rub.   A court of law  couldn’t/didn’t convict  him.    And as a  society we  have agreed to  allow  a jury  to  make that  decision  in matters of  guilt/innocence until  either new  evidence is  presented or an appeal  is   offered  to chage the  "fact"  of the jury’s decision.   You may or may not  agree with the jury  it  doesn’t  matter.   We  as a  nation and  society  have  made a contract  that on matters of guilt  and innocence  the jury  has the final  verdict.   And  as a blogger and/or a journalist  your  job is to report  facts  of  who when  why  where  etc.   It is not to input  your own opinion into the story  as a  fact.   OJ is the suspected killer.   It is  believed  that he  killed her.   It  wasn’t  proven.  

        The black panthers  voter  case  wasn’t prosecuted in a court of law.   There is  evidence out there to support  the  view  they  engaged in voter intimdation.  there is also  a pov  out there  that they  didn’t  until a jury   decides on their  guilt  or innocence  any jopurlanists  writing  about the  story   can  not  state  as a fact that  they engaged  in voter intimiation.  they  can  state  they  were  accused,  they  they  were suspected of  it,  that "many  believe"    etc.   But they  can’t  come  out  and  state it as a proven fact. 

        How many on this  site  believe the media  did  Gov Palin a disservice  by  reporting  rumors  or  opinions  instead of   just the facts.    Afterall those journalist that  printed that  trash  believed  it  as a "fact"  when  really it  was only their  opinion and they had no facts to back  up thier opinions.

        • hrandym

           Thanks.  OK, it doesn’t matter what I think.  Does it only matter what you think?

          OJS was tried by a jury and acquitted.  IMHO he was guilty.  That’s my opinion, and I’m sticking to it (to paraphrase an old Country Song).  The evidence against OJS was more than rumor.

          Sarah Palin was abused by the LSM through falsehoods and subsequent revelations have erased all against her.  That has little to do with OJ Simpson’s innocence or guilt where doubt of innocence continues, and for good reason.  The problem with the vote intimidators is that they were NOT brought to trial.

          I’m sorry, but I really didn’t identify your point.  Thanks for the response anyway.

    • Freempg

      unseen, it’s called "jury nullification." It’s generally defined as a jury reaching a verdict contrary to the weight of obvious evidence.

      The jury let OJ skate for past and present grievances against "The [white] Man." OJ was guilty as sin in the conventional sense.That the jury let him off was their prerogative but it certainly wasn’t because he didn’t kill his wife and Ron Goldman.

      I just wish jury nullification would have been cited at the time as the reason for the verdict rather than the jurists left having to gin up nonsense to explain their verdict as if there was any evidence whatsoever to back them up.

      • unseen1

        It  doesn’t  matter  what  it  is or  isn’t.  the fact is  that OJ   was never proven in a  court of  law  to be the killer.   To  state in an article  as  fact that he is  the killer  is  simply  wrong  and  sloppy  journalism  that pushes  a narrative.  the  writer may  have an strong  suspicion  or  opinion  that OJ was the killer but  he  can’t  back  up his  suspicion  with facts  therefore he  can’t state  it  as a fact   since it  was never proven  beyond  a  resonable  doubt   in  a court  of law  or  aywhere else.   facts  are facts.  opinions  are opinions  and it  is  up to journalists  as  well as bloggers to be able to seperate the  two.     Simply  state  "suspected  killer  OJ "  or  accused  killer OJ.   to  square the circle.  


        • colint

          In 20 years yours is the first comment I have read that is open to the idea that OJ could be innocent. I am 79, white and not a football fan. I had never heard of OJ until the trial. I watched the prelim and whole trial as shown on CNN, There was scientificaly proven evidence that the police fabricated and planted evidence to incriminate OJ. There was evidence proving beyond any doubt that the lead detective, VanAdder planted by OJs bed a sock that had the victims blood on it. THere was proof that the sock was not being worn at the time the blood was PUT
          on it. The blood on the sock contained PRESERVATIVE from the VIAL from which the blood was poured. Several weeks after the murders VanAdder planted blood at the crime scene and had it collected. DNA deteriorates when exposed to daylight. There was more DNA in the sample collected weeks after the murder that that collected on the day of the murder.If charged, VanAdder could have been convicted beyond ANY doubt. He was not charged. The other detective Furhman also planted evidence. A tape was played in the court, which the JURY DID NOT HEAR, in which Furman was heard boasting that he had planted evidence on N******S. There at least two incidences with him where evidenced seemed to have been planted and he could have been convicted beyond a reasonable (not any) doubt. If I had been on the OJ  jury I would have voted NOT Guilty.

          • unseen1

            yes  there are problems  with the  evidence  and there  was  enough  stuff  there that a reasonable person   could   say its was an attempt  by  racists to bring a  well liked  and sucessful black man down.    I’m not  arguing  if  he  was guilty  or  innocent  or  what I believe  or  don’t  believe.   My  comment  is  about  what is  fact and  what isn’t.   You  see the  same nonsense in the global warming  debate.  People publish  opinions  as facts  all the time  with out  stating its an opinion or  theory.   there are no facts to support  human  caused global warming  yet the media has no  problem  linking   the  two  together.    a good journalist  would  point  out that  man made global warming is a theory  not  settled  scinece.  OJ is no different.   He my  be suspected of killing his wife  but  he  was never proven to have done  so  and   simply  wishing  to to be  true  does not make it  a provable truth.    

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Suki-Pero/100001668382968 Suki Pero

    Luby’s Massacre – 1991,  23 dead and 20 injured.  Suzanna Hupp testified of her regret in obeying the law by taking her handgun out of her purse and leaving it in her car.  Both her parents were killed during the incident.  Gun controls further endanger law abiding citizens and leave us at the mercy of those intent on doing harm. 

    • HuntingMoose

      Imagine a teacher who would not have left her gun in the car.

      That teacher would now have been locked up by those insane liberals whose brains are destroyed by all the drugs they are on.

  • PAWatcher

    To the family, friends and countrymen of the victims of this atrocious act may God be with you.

    Just wondering if a liberal would have shot this evil, vile 20 year old shooter with his first shot or would they have reasoned his past experiences were causing this rampage and want to "help" and "save" HIM  from his suffering. Would they recognize and be able to act against evil? IMHO they may not be able to. obama couldn’t command the terrorists be shot in Benghazi to save Americans. He waffled on Ben Laden. He and the liberals want to level the playing field on every aspect of American life, never realizing good will make it to the top of the heap every time and fight back evil. 
     obama’s sham of concern in his news release wasn’t as touching as his concern for Trayvon, but none the less both incidents were used by him to further his 2nd ammendment  agenda………….nothing more or less from the liberal tolerant frauds. 

    • Freempg

      The left would advocate on Satan’s behalf for his having been abused by his Father.

      • PAWatcher

        Freempg, that’s exactly the Chutzpah  the liberals use. Would be funny, if it didn’t have a mental  sour note to it.

      • HuntingMoose

        They probably will come up with a priest and consequently religion to blame

  • Patriot41

    The "Massacre of the Innocents" that took place at Sandy Hook school, is a sickening reminder of how this nation has deteriorated into a godless, vile and evil society.  It is a horrific reminder of how little respect there is, for the life of a human being in this country.  Citizens should ask the question,   " why does it take such a terrible tragedy to wake them up to the fact, that we no longer have any respect for life? " 

    This is not a problem that has just surfaced, but one that has been going on since the early 1970’s, when Roe Vs Wade was rendered legal in the Supreme Court.  We are not talking about the lives of twenty innocents here, we are talking about fifty-six million innocents at last count, being aborted since that law was passed.  What difference is there from murdering them in the womb or the school house?  Either way, they will never get a chance to live out their lives as God intended.

    I am not a religious fanatic, but simply an old man who has watched our govt., and our justice system,  approve of fellow human beings murdering our future generations.  I simply cannot understand the reason or purpose, for our society to approve of such actions and I wonder why my fellow citizens do not have the same problem with understanding this fact?

    The answer to this problem, does not lie with removing guns from citizens’ possessions, rather it lies within the hearts and minds of people who do not wish to face the fact, that human life has so very little meaning anymore.  We see this fact play out daily, with senseless suicides of many of our youth; With gangs taking over communities, killing their neighbors and anyone else they see as an easy victim; With the justice department protecting murderers of innocent citizens, from being executed and then turning them back out onto the streets, to kill even more citizens;  With the govt., forcing employers to provide birth control methods, to stop reproduction of future generations;  With the president of this country telling senior citizens to take a pill and just die.  Then too, there is the proliferation of movies out of Hollywood, that glorify people killing people or computer programs that inspire children to kill as well.  All purvey the same message, human life is not worthy of living.  Are these facts no longer evident in our society?

    Has anyone else besides me noted, that with the tremendous financial problems that have occurred in this country, that cities and smaller communities are no longer capable of hiring and maintaining adequate law enforcement agencies to combat crime?  Citizens can no longer commute to and from their homes, without their lives being placed in danger for the lack of such enforcement.  So what is the answer?  Why take away one’s capability of defending oneself. That might be a good solution, if one could rely on the fact, that those who commit insane crimes such as the one at Sandy Hook this weekend, could not get access to an illegal weapon.  Even so, would such people not turn to a different devise, to carry out their insane intentions?

    First, the citizens of this nation have to face the reality of the true problem facing our society, that being the total lack of respect for human life.  They then have to direct their attention to those entities that are responsible for creating such a mentality.  They should start with their govt., and their justice system, to weed out those representatives within the system, that continue to encourage and protect those who have so little regard for life. 

    • Betsey_Ross

      Denial.  It will kill us all.

  • conservativemama

    The left always asks, how many times does this have to happen before we get serious about gun control?

    But that question is shallow and addresses nothing but the weapon of choice.  The murderer is still the murderer.

    The question should be, how many times do we have to see innocents murdered before we realize that our culture, our society is sick, very lost.  

    We are so materialistic, and I don’t mean it in the sense that we like to buy stuff, what I mean is that we’ve put values on life.  We take prenatal tests to determine whether to allow life to continue.  We will have a healthcare system that will place a value on human life and determine who gets what care.  We have a celebrity culture that glorifies the worst behavior.  We have leaders in business, government, academia, media, that justify the worst behavior as long as the perpetrator is someone they’ll protect.  We have a president who believes in a system, socialism, that dehumanizes people, makes them objects to be controlled.

    We turn our back on God and the eternal truths that come from our faiths, and find ourselves lost, with no moral compass.  Our families are broken, fathers have disappeared from the lives of too many children.  Children are often nothing more that the byproducts of sex lives.

    Yes, we have a lot to answer for, but we have many inconvenient questions that our government and media will not allow.  We need to speak loudly and stand firm.  Those lost children and their teachers deserve that respect.

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets