Shoot The Kids

[R. Richard]

Please explain how gun control could have prevented this. His mother was going to get him psychiatric help and she died for her trouble.

Fear of being committed may have caused Connecticut gunman to snap
By Jana Winter
Published December 18, 2012
FoxNews.com

NEWTOWN, Conn. – The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family and several of the victims’ families.

Adam Lanza, 20, targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown after killing his mother early Friday because he believed she loved the school “more than she loved him,” said Joshua Flashman, 25, who grew up not far from where the shooting took place. Flashman, a U.S. Marine, is the son of a pastor at an area church where many of the victims' families worship.

“From what I've been told, Adam was aware of her petitioning the court for conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed," Flashman told FoxNews.com. "Adam was apparently very upset about this. He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry. I think this could have been it, what set him off.”

A senior law enforcement official involved in the investigation confirmed that Lanza's anger at his mother over plans for “his future mental health treatment” is being looked at as a possible motive for the deadly shooting.

"He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry."

Flashman was told Nancy Lanza had begun filing paperwork to get conservatorship over her troubled son, but that could not be confirmed because a court official told FoxNews.com such records are sealed. The move would have been necessary for her to gain the legal right to commit an adult to a hospital or psychiatric facility against his will. A competency hearing had not yet been held.

Adam Lanza attended the Sandy Hook School as a boy, according to Flashman, who said Nancy Lanza had volunteered there for several years. Two law enforcement sources said they believed Nancy Lanza had been volunteering with kindergartners at the school. Most of Lanza's victims were first graders sources believe Nancy Lanza may have worked with last year.

Flashman said Nancy Lanza was also good friends with the school’s principal and psychologist—both of whom were killed in the shooting rampage.

"Adam Lanza believed she cared more for the children than she did for him, and the reason he probably thought this [was the fact that] she was petitioning for conservatorship and wanted to have him committed," Flashman said. "I could understand how he might perceive that—that his mom loved him less than she loved the kids, loved the school. But she did love him. But he was a troubled kid and she probably just couldn’t take care of him by herself anymore."

The Washington Post reported that the distraught mother had considered moving with her son to Washington state, where she had found a school she thought could help him. Either way, according to Flashman, Nancy Lanza was at her wit's end.

A separate neighborhood source also told FoxNews.com that Nancy Lanza had come to the realization she could no longer handle her son alone. She was caring for him full-time, but told friends she needed help. She was planning to have him involuntarily hospitalized, according to the source, who did not know if she had taken formal steps.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/1...sed-connecticut-madman-to-snap/#ixzz2FSbyQF7M

 

[njlauren]

I would be careful about anything on Fox News, they are not exactly the BBC, and if it involves guns they are going to be working overtime to promote the NRA position.

What does this have to do with gun control? A lot. First of all, Nancy Lanza owned those guns legally, was able to buy and register them, even though she had an emotionally disturbed child living in her house. Perhaps with a good background check, she could have been denied the right to own guns, given her living situation, it isn't farfetched to think that someone's living situation should be a factor in this.

More importantly, if we had real gun control laws that have accountability in them, maybe the law would require gun owners, as it does in some states, to keep weapons locked away. States already do this when children are in the house, trigger locks and so forth, not keeping the guns loaded, so if we had rational gun control laws we could require this, with penalties for failure to comply. We have laws requiring safety with cars, more then we do with guns.

And if we had laws that restricted the size of the magazines on weapons and also banned the sale of weapons like the AR15, even if Adam had gotten handguns he wouldn't have been able to do the damage he did, a lot more victims would have survived. Because of that gun (thanks, NRA) he was able to pump up to 11 bullets into the victims, and with a handgun he wouldn't have had the time, plus it is possible someone could disarm someone with a handgun, with an AR15, forget it.

And I will add if she was at the point where she was seeking to get him locked up (and I have heard it no where else that she was), that means she was even dumber then I thought, if she was worried enough to want to get him committed, what the fuck were the guns doing in the house like that?

 

[sr71plt]

RR is one of the resident flakes, NJ (as you can tell by his avatar carrying one of Santa's boots). You may not want to be drawn into this pit. Maybe we could let the gun fascination boys have this thread all to themselves.

 

[R. Richard]

I would be careful about anything on Fox News, they are not exactly the BBC, and if it involves guns they are going to be working overtime to promote the NRA position.

Ah yes, first question the source, despite the fact that the source cites names and checkable references.

What does this have to do with gun control? A lot. First of all, Nancy Lanza owned those guns legally, was able to buy and register them, even though she had an emotionally disturbed child living in her house. Perhaps with a good background check, she could have been denied the right to own guns, given her living situation, it isn't farfetched to think that someone's living situation should be a factor in this.

Send in an evaluation team. Go deep into a prospective gun owners personal life, including children, friends, political affiliations, etc. What you're suggesting smacks of the evil empire Russia and would cost a fortune.

More importantly, if we had real gun control laws that have accountability in them, maybe the law would require gun owners, as it does in some states, to keep weapons locked away. States already do this when children are in the house, trigger locks and so forth, not keeping the guns loaded, so if we had rational gun control laws we could require this, with penalties for failure to comply. We have laws requiring safety with cars, more then we do with guns.

Who says that the weapons weren't locked away? It's three in the morning and some whako is trying to break into your house. You have to get up, find the hidden keys for the trigger lock, load the weapon, aim and fire. An equally effective solution is to sit on the floor, spread your legs, bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.

And if we had laws that restricted the size of the magazines on weapons and also banned the sale of weapons like the AR15, even if Adam had gotten handguns he wouldn't have been able to do the damage he did, a lot more victims would have survived. Because of that gun (thanks, NRA) he was able to pump up to 11 bullets into the victims, and with a handgun he wouldn't have had the time, plus it is possible someone could disarm someone with a handgun, with an AR15, forget it.

If you truly think that it's easier to manually disarm someone using a short range weapon, such as a handgun, rather than manually disarm someone with a long range weapon, such as an AR-15, you are either really ignorant or you need mental help.

And I will add if she was at the point where she was seeking to get him locked up (and I have heard it no where else that she was), that means she was even dumber then I thought, if she was worried enough to want to get him committed, what the fuck were the guns doing in the house like that?

Like what? The SOB killed his mother to get the guns. She may have had the guns locked away, maybe not. If at least one of the guns was a final self defense weapon and it was locked away, the SOB wasn't the only nut case living in the house.

 

[loquere]

Your title is so offensive. No, thats all to be said.

 

[bronzeage]

A woman has an assault rifle and a son with a mental problem.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Cruel2BKind]

A woman has an assault rifle and a son with a mental problem.

What could possibly go wrong?

Well said, ser.

 

[Boxlicker101]

He apparently did not "snap" as the word is being used:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...es-planning-control-former-fbi-180620270.html

 

[R. Richard]

A woman has an assault rifle and a son with a mental problem.

What could possibly go wrong?

The whako used an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, which is not an assault rifle. The military M-16 rifle is a full automatic assault rifle version of the AR-15. The AR-15 is legal for civilian possession, the M-16 is not legal for civilian possession.

The civilian possession of an M-16 rifle is illegal. The civilian possession of a son with severe mental problems is, alas, not illegal. People tend to worry about a civilian who posesses an assault rifle. People tend to not worry about the maniac next door. Don't ask me why, I have no idea.

 

[nonfictional]

I thought this thread was about whether the gun laws need to be changed. You can't use the fact that the gun the boy used is currently legal to argue that gun control would not have therefore made a difference. If the gun was illegal, he would'nt have it and that results in fewer dead kids. Therefore: make guns illegal. How complex is that?

 

[R. Richard]

I thought this thread was about whether the gun laws need to be changed. You can't use the fact that the gun the boy used is currently legal to argue that gun control would not have therefore made a difference. If the gun was illegal, he would'nt have it and that results in fewer dead kids. Therefore: make guns illegal. How complex is that?

Very complex:
Amendment II (To the US Constitution)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What you're proposing is that we change the US Constitution. Such a change would require a two-part process of three steps: amendments are proposed then they must be ratified by the states. An Amendment can be proposed one of two ways. Both ways have two steps. It can be proposed by Congress, and ratified by the states. Or on demand of two-thirds of the state legislatures, Congress could call a constitutional convention to propose an amendment, then to be ratified by the states. To date, all amendments, whether ratified or not, have been proposed by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress.

 

[njlauren]

Not surprisingly, the claim that the mother was going to have the kid committed turns out to be factually unproven, there are reports in the papers that the person who said that was some kid (the son of the pastor of a local evangelical church), and the father said that it was scuttlebut, not authoritative.

Part of the story as told is also completely false, where it claims that Adam Lanza shot up the school because he felt the mother cared more for the school then for him, that she had spent a lot of time volunteering there and so forth..the only problem is, no one ever remembers her being at the school, as a volunteer or anything else, and the description of the mother is that she is something of a misanthrope, she seems to spend most of her time living at home, doesn't socialize much and so forth, doesn't exactly sound like the active volunteer type.

The AR15 is a legal weapon, and that is the point of gun control laws being proposed, to make guns like that illegal. The second amendment doesn't say citizens have the right to hold and bear any arms they want, it says that citizens have the right to bear arms. The law always has a right to temper any rights where public safety is involved, if you get up in front of a crowd of drunken buddies and tell them to go out and kill someone who is black, and they do it, you will be charged with incitement to riot among other things, free speech doesn't apply. Fully automatic weapons like the M16 are banned and try going into court for the right to own one, and watch what happens.

Guns like the AR15 for home defense are a menace, a weapon that is designed to put out a lot of bullets (inaccurately I might add) is absolutely a horrible form of home defense. The bullets will go all over, and in typical houses they could go right through sheetrock walls and kill people in other rooms or even go through an exterior wall and kill someone outside or in another house, if they are close together, the muzzle velocity on a rifle is typical >2000 feet per second, on a handgun it is generally less then 1000.....and houses tend to be close quarters, the idea of 'long range weapon' when you are inside a house where a typical room maybe 10x15 is kind of asinine.

As far as kissing your ass goodbye, you do realize that when someone breaks into the house, that there is generally time to react, you make it sounds like you are going to spend 20 minutes getting your weapon or something. First of all, you don't need 20 guns to defend yourself from a burglar, so most of the guns can be locked up in a safe because they aren't going to be needed, those prob are weapons used for sport shooting or hunting.

You can have a gun in a drawer by the bed with a trigger lock and have the key on your key ring on top of the drawer and it takes a couple of seconds to unlock the gun and then load it (if it makes you feel better, keep it loaded at night and unload it in the morning), there isn't any fumbling, it is right there. By having the key on your ring, it means a kid isn't going to be able to do anything or someone else not supposed to..I know some gun nuts have shit for brains, but what I just proposed isn't burdensome and allows you to protect yourself, because there is time. If someone sneaks into a house and sneaks up to your bedroom, it won't matter whether you have the lock or not, they have the drop on you, even if the gun is fully armed and ready the minute you reached for it, the bad guy would blow you away if he had a weapon.

As far as the woman goes, all accounts coming out of the cops were that the guns and ammunition were readily available to her son, she left ammo and guns openly ready to a kid who was basically mentally fucked up by anyone's account, she bought him a bullet proof vest I am guessing (given that the kid didn't work and she had all the money), and had access to hundreds of rounds they found him with.....the woman was a complete dipshit in my opinion, and unfortunately she is like far too many gun owners, they don't have an ounce of common sense (and I apologize upfront to the many safe, sane gun owners who understand and respect guns, and unlike this bitch, didn't treat them like a joke, the sane gun owners I know,and it is a lot, are uber careful because they respect the power of the guns) and then sit there like a turkey in the rain drowning when something bad happens....

 

[RjThoughts]

At this point and time, ANYTHING said about his proported mental health is pure speculation on the part of the midea and is frankly disgusting and unprofessional. Allow the authorities to do a thorough investigation and put out a report.

 

[R. Richard]

At this point and time, ANYTHING said about his proported mental health is pure speculation on the part of the midea and is frankly disgusting and unprofessional. Allow the authorities to do a thorough investigation and put out a report.

Lemme see if I have this right. A guy shoots his own mother to death, drives her car to an elementary school, breaks in and shoots to death some 26 people, including 20 very young kids. Now, you want to wait for the authorities to make a report that decides if the guy has mental health issues. You gotta be kidding me. Oh yeah, the report should also decide if the authorities acted properly if the mother did indeed try to institutionalize the shooter. Can you say, "conflict of interest?"

 

[RjThoughts]

Lemme see if I have this right. A guy shoots his own mother to death, drives her car to an elementary school, breaks in and shoots to death some 26 people, including 20 very young kids. Now, you want to wait for the authorities to make a report that decides if the guy has mental health issues. You gotta be kidding me. Oh yeah, the report should also decide if the authorities acted properly if the mother did indeed try to institutionalize the shooter. Can you say, "conflict of interest?"

You seem to know everything so give us YOUR official report.

I am so fucking tired of "journalists" giving reports on every fucking thing while nothing official has been said. You can play along with the bullshit and read the nonsense. Anyone with common sense would not be bothered.

 

[YoursSINSerely]

A doctor, or a panel of doctors, should be the ones to get someone hospitalized, not a a judge who is just a glorified lawyer. Their job is law and to protect people's rights. A doctor knows more about health and well-being than a lawyer ever will, and they know how to act a lot faster than the legal system.

And, just so you know, it's not that easy to get a gun in CT. People--friends, family and acquaintances, have to write intelligent letters in order for the approval, plus there is a waiting period to purchase one. I feel sorry for the ones who wrote the letters for that mother to get approval. I hope the thought of their words hang heavy over their heads.

I also think there should be a limit on gun purchases. One is enough~

 

[sr71plt]

A doctor, or a panel of doctors, should be the ones to get someone hospitalized, not a a judge who is just a glorified lawyer. Their job is law and to protect people's rights. A doctor knows more about health and well-being than a lawyer ever will, and they know how to act a lot faster than the legal system.

And, just so you know, it's not that easy to get a gun in CT. People--friends, family and acquaintances, have to write intelligent letters in order for the approval, plus there is a waiting period to purchase one. I feel sorry for the ones who wrote the letters for that mother to get approval. I hope the thought of their words hang heavy over their heads.

I also think there should be a limit on gun purchases. One is enough~

And individual's rights are based in the law, not in medical diagnosis. So, you aren't going to get the judge out of the way. Doctors should weigh in on the medical issues, though.

 

[DeeZire]

R. R. if there's any truth to the article, the mom should have removed the guns from the home. It's that's simple. That's what responsible gun ownership is all about.

Since hers is but one of many examples of gun owners being incapable of acting responsibly, we should accept the intent of the Second Amendment and require all guns to be registered in the context of a local militia. The purpose of the militia would not be only to prepare for a war with the government (or whatever "other" is popular at the time), the purpose would also be to keep track of the guns.

Say each militia covers 100 guns, or 100 gun owner households, or whatever would make sense for that community. Everyone knows everyone else, and when they see someone going off the rails, they remove the guns from the home and lock them up at the shooting range, where the gun owner could have access to them at any time - in a well regulated environment. Then, if the gun owner can provide medical proof that there is no "going off the rails" going on, the guns get returned. This is called being proactive. I think a majority of Americans would agree that in the case of gun violence, it's better to be proactive than reactive. A few people might "lose their freedom" to own guns on a temporary basis, but a few children or other innocent bystander might avoid losing their freedom. Permanently. In other words, "losing your freedom" works in both directions. You can't sanctify one direction while ignoring the other.

Also, the kid with the mental disorder would get flagged in the system so he can't buy guns, (this would have prevented Jan. 8 in Tucson, and many other tragedies) and the background check for private sales of guns would become law. (The gun show loophole gets closed.) This would go a long way towards reducing gun violence in this country. It wouldn't eliminate it - nothing will eliminate it - but at least it would bring this country into compliance with the intentions of the Second Amendment. (Speaking of that, at the time it was adopted, the Second Amendment referred to single shot muskets, not automatic weapons.)

 

[YoursSINSerely]

And individual's rights are based in the law, not in medical diagnosis. So, you aren't going to get the judge out of the way. Doctors should weigh in on the medical issues, though.

And, the court system is bogged down with whacko, angry people, who all think they have rites and know how to manipulate their words to make others think they are the right one. The judges take too long to weigh their thoughts.

 

[sr71plt]

And, the court system is bogged down with whacko, angry people, who all think they have rites and know how to manipulate their words to make others think they are the right one. The judges take too long to weigh their thoughts.

Unfortunately, that doesn't have anything to do with individual rights being a legal issue, not a medical one.

 

[YoursSINSerely]

Unfortunately, that doesn't have anything to do with individual rights being a legal issue, not a medical one.

The mother was trying to get conservatorship of the kid. It's only given by a judge who reads the doctor's notes.

 

[sr71plt]

The mother was trying to get conservatorship of the kid. It's only given by a judge who reads the doctor's notes.

Are you hard of understanding? Doctors can't interpret the law. Judges do. That, itself, is the law.

Does your plumber clean your teeth?

 

[nonfictional]

I agree with DeeZire. Also the assumption implicit in the second amendment, that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, is no longer a valid one. We have the military for that (the most expensive one in the world that no one dares to mess with). To say that civilians are justified in carrying guns in spite of having this gargantuan army is nothing short of stupid paranoia. The second amendment should be amended. It will be hard, but it's not complex.

Yes, the kid may be wacko, but if there were no guns he could not have caused this level of destruction. Don't just make guns illegal, make them disappear from cold, dead civilian hands.

 

[sr71plt]

Hey, I'm all for anyone in the National Guard to have a musket who wanted one. That would be a strict constructionist interpretation of the Second Amendment.

 

[njlauren]

At this point and time, ANYTHING said about his proported mental health is pure speculation on the part of the midea and is frankly disgusting and unprofessional. Allow the authorities to do a thorough investigation and put out a report.

The official report will hopefully shed light on what the kid actually had, but the 'speculation' you are talking about isn't just blowing smoke. Professional profilers have been interviewed and they do stay away from giving a specific diagnosis (since they cannot, for obvious reasons) but what they have said time and again is that the reported nature of the kid, his extreme introversion, his unwillingness to get his picture taken, the fact that at age 20 he did nothing but live in his mothers house and take up space, had no friends, had no social life, added to the brutal nature of the crime, killing 20 young children as if he were killing ants with a can of raid, with according to reports of the people in the school, with no emotion, adds up to someone with severe emotional and /or psychological problems. It doesn't take a practicing psychiatrist to figure out that someone who can do that is deranged, people are hardwired to protect children, not kill them, and the fact that the kid showed all kinds of signs of issues before this happened means he wasn't some normal 20 year old who snapped...

If you want to try and argue that he wasn't crazy, be my guest, but I would love to find a rational reason for killing 20 young kids and 6 teachers like that..road rage, kid tried to run him over on his/her bike? They would't let the kid play hopscotch with them so he decided to kill them?

One thing it looks like for certain is he knew what he was doing was wrong but didn't care, he apparently smashed the hard drive on his computer so authorities couldn't figure out why he did what he did, and the planning, having a bullet proof vest, meant he knew the consequences, so this wasn't delusions, like thinking he was saving the children or something, it shows premeditation which means it more was like some sort of thing that allowed him to convince himself that the kids needed to die but he also knew it was wrong, which would be, for example, something a sociopath could do as I understand it.

I suspect what you are angry about is that the mother is being portrayed as a dumb ass gun owner who was too stupid to realize you don't have open weapons around someone with emotional or psychological issues, what you are hoping for is that they come back with a report that the son was this perfectly normal kid who just suddenly snapped, thus exonerating the mother, and thus untarring the reputation of fellow gun owners..or even better, that they say they don't know, so people like yourself can say "they never officially said the kid was mentally ill, so the mother wasn't a dips hit", which is lawyer logic, not rational thought, since there are few people that think a kid that drops out of school, lives with his mother, doesn't work, doesn't do anything but hang out at home, no friends, no social interactions, is a normal person exhibiting normal behavior, he wasn't functioning, which means something was wrong.