You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.
Posting a Diary Entry
Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as
is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.
When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.
If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.
ATTENTION: READ THE RULES.
One diary daily maximum.
Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries
that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
This interview with the killer's aunt is very telling.
"Last time we visited with her in person we talked about prepping and you know, are you ready for what can happen down the line when the economy collapses,"said the gunman’s aunt, Marsha Lanza.
The reporter asked, "Survivalist kind of thing?"
"Yea," said Marsha Lanza.
Right. Survivalist. Everyone for him or herself.
Nancy’s guns were supposed to be for self defense. Marsha Lanza called her nephew a special needs child. So far, no motive has been released."
Owning those guns was supposed to protect Nancy. Instead, it created the context for "Survivalism" inside that school. Surely, it could have been, once the shooting started, "Everyone for him or herself." But it wasn't. People looked out and protected one another. Her premise of what makes up human nature was turned on its head. There were extraordinary, selfless acts of heroism. Had she known that people are like this, is it possible she would not have had those guns? But if she did not have those guns.... :-(
“Just pray for peace,” said Marsha Lanza. “Do I think gun laws need to be changed? No. It’s the person that does the killing, not the gun."
Perhaps. But if Nancy had no guns in her house, Adam would have had to figure out another way to channel his rage. People do the killing, but the weapons dictate the method. The "tools" Nancy owned to keep her alive became the tools of her own destruction. And, tragically, the destruction of dozens of families mere moments later. In her home,"Survivalism" became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yet, at the school, with people looking out for each other, amidst the carnage, acting together, and for each other, many lives were saved.
If we only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So she owned particular "tools," and got a particular result. Nancy focused on a "Survivalist" world, and it manifested itself, but survival for her was not an option. Owning these weapons with a "special needs" child, if the "special needs" child is anything like this one, is insane. It led to what, in retrospect, was a quite logical, insane, conclusion.