Skip to main content

OK, the timing of this incident is weird for me. Just a couple of days ago, I saw the movie We need to talk about Kevin . The movie is about a mother who has a severe dysfunctional relationship with her psychopathic son since his childhood. A lot of the movie is about this mother who lives a depressed existence punishing herself in the aftermath of her son engineering a school massacre after he kills off his father and sister at home. He did not have a gun, but he had a bow and arrow. So, I think we should be careful in how we advocate gun control using this school massacre as the example. I actually agree with the right wing nut jobs that this incident is more about mental illness than gun control. And I think we end up looking exaggerating by saying "well, if everyone had a gun, it would have been worse in that school incident." Really? I actually think if every adult had a gun, he would not have been able to kill as many kids as he did.

Also, the mother was the one who owned the guns and she probably would have passed all the psychological tests to own those guns, even if I wonder why she really needed that many, especially the semi automatic. This is where I disagree with the right wingers - what is the need for someone to carry a semi automatic around legally?   I will admit that maybe the relevant gun control topic that should be discussed using this incident as a backdrop is if ownership of more dangerous weapons which can fire off rounds more prolifically be subject to stricter screening than a regular glock. NRA fanatics , relax, I am not advocating banning guns.

In the movie, the mother is aware of the son being strange, and there are hints where the mom sees him obsessed with practicing bow and arrow target practice to a visibly disturbing extent. However, the parents were so dysfunctional that they could not have a proper discussion to get help for that kid.

I would be curious about the family structure. We have become a nation of dysfunctional families. There is talk that the brother hasn't talked to the killer in 2 years. Was there any abuse in the family? Was the mother too harsh? or too lenient? I noticed the parents are divorced. Did the father do his duty as a responsible father? We could go on and on about this. And no, I don't subscribe to Huckabee's theory of lack of religion leading to Lanza's demented state. As if no serial killer ever came from a religious family.

Or was Lanza just a bad seed?

You know what would have been a good example of much needed stronger gun control? There is another news item in today's papers that got buried under the headlines. It was the followup to the story about the angry middle aged white guy  Michael David Dunn who shot a young black teen, Jordan Davis,  for merely playing his music loud.

A Florida grand jury has indicted a man on a first-degree murder charge in the death of a teenager following an argument over loud music coming from the teen's car.

The Florida Times-Union reports officials in the state attorney's office said Thursday they won't be seeking the death penalty against 46-year-old Michael David Dunn. He was initially charged with second-degree murder.

Dunn is accused of the Nov. 23 shooting death of 17-year-old Jordan Davis.

This is the real story of gun control. One can't prevent wackos from going crazy at a school with whatever weapons they can find at their disposal. And such things don't happen as often as other casualties that are lesser known tragedies .

The Dunn and Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin cases are the better examples of the need for gun control. Because these are cases where we have hot tempered guys who lack the emotional and psychological stability to use a gun. People have lost the ability to reason or even have a fight with another person without using deadly force. This impatience has spread throughout society. Even cops are much quicker to use tasers and guns  than try to use less violent ways to calm down a suspect.

Quite frankly, I would be more afraid of what would happen to me if I ever got into a mere verbal argument at a bar with a hot headed guy than worrying about my kids(if I have any) getting shot at their elementary school because these days the hot headed guy is more likely to shoot me if he is losing the fight with me. If it escalated into a physical confrontation, should I be worried about being shot in case I was winning the fight?

So what I am getting at is this. I don't think denying that "if everyone had a gun, then this would not happen to the same extent at the theater in Colorado or the school shooting" is the right tact to use. I actually don't buy the liberal argument against it.
What I do buy is the liberal argument that if everyone did have a gun, while it may mitigate a situation like this, it is more than offset by the increased danger of every argument nationwide potentially escalating into a deadly encounter.

I think suitable gun control laws should not merely address better owner screening, but also STRONGER LAWS to prosecute cases like Trayvon MArtin's where the burden of proof shifts to the guy doing the shooting. Society should be able to say to these shooters "We give you the right to own a gun, but there needs to be a deterrant for you to use your gun as anything but a last resort." This is because while a Zimmerman may not  be able to pass screening, maybe Dunn does. But stronger prosecuting laws would make him think twice before being that reckless. And maybe like you take a drivers license test, you take a video game like test where you go through simulations of tough situations where you do not use your gun. Not foolproof, but can reduce the tendency of someone to resort to such acts.

So when we think about gun control, the Dunn and Zimmerman cases seems more relevant to me than the more sensational school shooting. I think cases like Lanza would be more prevented with better psychological help because the Lanza guy could get information on how to blow up a school without a gun.

[UPDATE] NY Daily News put up an articlethat fills in more details of the family. So there seems to be more similarities to the movie. The family in real life is even richer than the family in the movie. The parents are upstanding citizens but there seem to be long held views by friends and acquaintances that this kid was weird with a personality disorder that may incorporate Asperger's and the lack of ability to feel pain. The view is that money was no object in the family. The divorced parents are on friendly terms, so it is hard to explain the psyche of the mother for wanting to get that many weapons as she probably had little reason to feel threatened by an ex spouse.

Like the movie, the parents had to know about the son's problems for a long time if one were to believe these second hand accounts. Hell, I would actually check this kid's video rental history or cable subscription(maybe cable companies can track what was watched via their DVR), if any, and see if he watched that movie.

Did the son fake the mother's identity and purchase some of  the guns online? When were these guns purchased? If there is any relevant gun control issue, one issue would be to put an end to anonymous purchases. If that's the case here, maybe the mother would have prevented this from happening once she saw the charge coming through.

Considering all the sloppy reporting(seriously, get some expert internet sleuths and you can get a lot more info about a person than what has been relayed), I wouldn't be surprised if the mother who was getting $240K in annual alimony was not even a regular teacher at that school. Maybe freelanced as a sub?  

[UPDATE 2] According to CNN, the semi automatic had to be purchased before 1993 for it to be grandfathered in the state of CT. So we can discount the theory that he faked his mother's identity to get the guns.

[UPDATE 3] So now the story makes sense. The mother foolishly encouraged her odd son to go on regular outings  for target practice with her. She bragged about her weapons to her landscaper(who was a drinking buddy). Maybe she felt that getting her son into shooting would bring out some kind of regular joe energy out of him, who knows. Or maybe she just wanted to give him something to do outdoors. Or she wanted him to feel the same passion for guns that she felt. Supposdly she was very proud of the guns she collected. It's too bad she lacked the common sense to have the guns secure and beyond the odd son's control.

In the movie, the dad buys the son a professional bow and arrow set after he finds that it is something his odd son can focus on with a passion. The mother sees the warning signs, but the couple just can't get around to discussing it honestly enough to figure it out.

[UPDATE 4]: I tried to not to express this opinion early on. But now that more info has come out, I am free to bash the mother wholeheartedly. There is this scene in the movie where Kevin's mother is slapped by a woman from the same town in the aftermath of the tragedy. I thought that was harsh. But if Nancy Lanza lived, i would not feel one bit sorry for her if she was slapped by one of her neighbors and ostracized by her town.

Hell , looks like the father is the one with an indifferent relationship with the son (friends vouch for his so called love for the kids, yet he didn't seem them for a long time?). THe mother is in the role of the John C Reilly character where her own encouragement of his shooting hobby resulted in her getting killed like the father in the movie. BUt at least, in the movie, the guy was just a clueless putz. This lady is a paranoid idiot who not only cost herself her own life, but the lives of 20 plus kids.  For me, she is just as guilty as the son.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  We need to address how we handle mental illness (5+ / 0-)

    in this country, but we also need to address gun worship and the cult of gun fetishism, and how this cult is manipulated by the gun industry.

    We can't even have a meaningful dialogue on gun violence in this country because it will be shouted down and bullied into silence.

    I think this is the tipping point.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 07:31:55 PM PST

  •  here: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beltane, majcmb1, condorcet
    zakaria, cnn
    The United States stands out from the rest of the world not because it has more nutcases – I think we can assume that those people are sprinkled throughout every society equally –but because it has more guns.
    Look at the map below. It shows the average number of firearms per 100 people. Most of the world is shaded light green – those are the countries where there are between zero and 10 guns per 100 citizens. In dark brown, you have the countries with more than 70 guns per 100 people. The U.S. is the only country in that category. In fact, the last global Small Arms Survey showed there are 88 guns for every 100 Americans. Yemen is second at 54. Serbia and Iraq are among the other countries in the top 10.

    We have 5 percent of the world's population and 50 percent of the guns.
    But the sheer number of guns isn’t an isolated statistic. The data shows we compare badly on fatalities, too.  The U.S has three gun homicides per 100,000 people. That’s four times as many as Switzerland, ten times as many as India, 20 times as many as Australia and England.

    Whatever you think of gun rights and gun control, the numbers don’t flatter America.
    I saw an interesting graph in The Atlantic magazine recently. A spectrum shows the number of gun-related deaths by state. Now if you add one more piece of data – gun control restrictions – you see that the states with at least one firearm law (such as an assault weapons ban or trigger locks) tend to be the states with fewer gun-related deaths.
    Conclusion? Well, there are lots of factors involved, but there is at least a correlation between tighter laws and fewer gun-related deaths.

    I've shown you data comparing countries, and comparing states. Now consider the U.S. over time. Americans tend to think the U.S. is getting more violent. In a recent Gallup survey, 68 percent said there’s more crime in the U.S. than there was a year ago. Well, here’s what I found surprising: the U.S. is actually getting safer. In the decade since the year 2000, violent crime rates fell by 20 percent; aggravated assault by 22 percent; motor vehicle theft by 42 percent; murder – by all weapons – by 13 percent.
    But guns are the exception. Gun homicide rates haven’t improved at all. They were at roughly the same levels in 2009 as they were in 2000. Meanwhile, serious but non-fatal gun injuries caused during assault have actually increased in the last decade by 20 percent, as guns laws have gotten looser and getting automatic weapons has become easier.

    We are the world’s most heavily-armed civilian population. One out of every three Americans knows someone who has been shot.

    Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but not to his or her own facts. Saying that this is all a matter of psychology is a recipe for doing nothing. We cannot change the tortured psychology of madmen like James Holmes. What we can do is change our gun laws.
    Should U.S. gun laws be tougher? What would you change?

    Post by:
    CNN's Fareed Zakaria

  •  To the Extent Our Need Includes Drawing On This (0+ / 0-)

    specific event, we have to wait till we have the basic picture.

    Information has been especially slow --it seems to me-- coming out of this event. It could be because of authoritarian excesses, but it also could be because of a need of enforcement to not tip off accomplices or associated supporting sources.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 07:36:44 PM PST

  •  Always someone else's fault, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Isn't it?  It's even better if we can pin it on the mother.  Yep, that's snark.  As the grieving mother of a young woman who killed herself, I can't tell you how much it means to me to find someone who knows nothing of this situation, but who sure knows who to blame.  Thanks so much for your insight.  I'm sure it'll be very helpful to someone crying themselves to sleep tonight.

  •  Here's An Example Of A Madman's School Rampage (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlochow, 417els

    in an environment where guns are verboten.

    A knife-wielding man injured 22 children and one adult outside a primary school in central China as students were arriving for classes Friday, police said, the latest in a series of periodic rampage attacks at Chinese schools and kindergartens. [...]

    A Guangshan county hospital administrator said the man first attacked an elderly woman, then students, before being subdued by security guards who have been posted across China following a spate of school attacks in recent years. He said there were no deaths among the nine students admitted, although two badly injured children had been transferred to better-equipped hospitals outside the county.

    A doctor at Guangshan's hospital of traditional Chinese medicine said that seven students had been admitted, but that none were seriously injured.

    The lethality of guns vs. other weapons has to be factored into the policy discussions.  Sure people can kill each other - in the heat of the moment or with premeditation - with readily available things like knives, fists, bottles, or rocks.  But victims, young and old, stand a much better chance of escaping and/or surviving.  
  •  We have a lot of stress in the U.S. That plus (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlochow, pravin, 417els, melo

    gun fetishism and unhealthy mythology of the rugged individual all are factors that play into our insane level of gun violence. Plus there's more; I'm barely scratching the surface.

    I think a careful, multi-pronged approach will have to be taken to get that violence down, including some willingness to decrease the amount of guns in the general population.  I'm a gun owner and I say that.

    I wonder if China had as much spree violence before it went capitalist?  I'm not dismissing the fact that he was not able to kill like he would have if he'd had a gun.  I'm just wondering what role inhumane capitalism has on societies as stressors

    •  yep, we can't prevent every case, but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      we sure can minimize the chances. For all I know, the angry white guy who shot down the black teen for playing music could pass all tests to get a gun, but  better screening would at least reduce the chances of a guy like him shooting down some innocent guy.

  •  thank you. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pravin, melo

    you have a few typos you might want to clean up, but this is by far the most rational reaction I've seen yet.  I agree that we need to take a long hard look at Lanza and why he snapped.  Too many are willing to just dismiss it as "crazy".  Sure it's crazy, but what can we learn about identifying, treating, and preventing more crazy?  

    And you're absolutely right, gun regulation would not have prevented this incident.  

    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe

    by jlynne on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 10:01:12 PM PST

  •  no foundation... (0+ / 0-)

    If you're going to write a diary like this, you really need to clinch the case on the link between mental illness and gun violence.

    Your primary evidence is a movie that you saw on TV.

    So yeah, let's just say your case is unproven.

    I suspect it's because you're an idiot.

    One more thing: you can knock off using slurs against the mentally ill like "wacko" as soon as you're ready to stop looking like an idiot.

    Your whole approach to this topic is callous and thoughtless.

    Prison rape is not funny.

    by social democrat on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 03:15:59 AM PST

    •  And you are an expert? (0+ / 0-)

      Look who is preaching. I don't think I have resorted to calling another DKOs reader an idiot just because I have disagreed with his opinion though I won't mind namecalling in response. ANd I never stated any of my opinions as based on a serious study.

      And then you have the audacity to hiderate me? Don't believe in freedom of speech? I reserve hiderates only for morons like you who engage in personal attacks and try to derail discussions on purpose with a lot of intentional noise. I won't hiderate you because I want everyone to see what a sancitmonious dumbass you are.

  •  i am surprised this diarist's opinion (0+ / 0-)

    and conclusions are not more widespread.

    once the tears are dried, we need the intellectual curiosity and detachment to regard these events as anthropological challenges, sociological anomalies that should be studied minutely as the the forces that shaped this desperado's character, so that other families, unconsciously nurturing similar personalities may have help flagging clues before the spring gets so wound up that this sort of event happens.

    it's not all about blaming the mother or any family member, or videogames, but seeing in what patterns the stimulus to create this horrific tragedy take.

    a psychological whodunit...

    shooters like the norway guy may yield invaluable data for the study of psychosis prevention.

    trying to de-gun america in one fell swoop would create a bloodbath, so i commend the balanced approach regarding gun control as well.

    too bad the PC police react to a few words, the points should not be missed for the lack of perfection in this regard, imo.

    this kid Lanza was acting out what many are thinking and feeling, he was a product of his environment, and the whole matrix he emerged from bears rigorous examination, or we lose a the chance to find even the smallest silver lining to this blackest of thunderclouds hanging over civility.

    why? just kos..... *just cause*

    by melo on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 05:11:40 AM PST

  •  We Need To Talk About This Diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    1. Why does anyone and I mean anyone need to own automatic weapons that can shoot ammo at a rate as high as our men and women in combat?

    2. In the movie you mention the mentally ill son uses a bow and arrow? A bow and arrow can't blow the hinges off a bathroom door where a teacher and 20 or so students are hiding and praying they aren't shot. That is ridiculous.Bottom line: Don't defend owning semis based on a movie where the weapon used is of a different type completely.

    3. I don't care about this young man's mental state. If he had woken up this morning with the idea of killing a lot of people, it would not have been possible without the help of these military weapons grade semi-automatics. Sure he could have tried using a knife, someone would have wrestled it away fom him, sure he could have considered a bow and arrow, really? Sure he could have made a bomb, but that requires a lot of talent, time, and very questionable and alerting purchases. How about a six shooter? Maybe he misses with the first three and hits with the next two then misses again. Then what? A terrified shooter has to reload and try again. Meanwhile having minimal fire power, his spree is greatly restricted and many many lives are saved.

    4. This is just an all around bad diary. It's premiss is the usual blame the shooter, his mother, his upbringing, his mental illness, his access, his ability to procure etc..but never ever question the weapon itself. That is just insane. It is precisely the weapon's  ability to inflict damage to this extent that is the root problem.I don't care whose hands it is in. These are weapons designed to kill quickly, efficiently, and under attack situations. I.E. as in war or police tactical maneuvers. These weapons should be banned immediately for personal use. The fines for personal ownership, sale of, or transfer to anyone for personal ownership should include heavy fines of no less than 5,000 per weapon and up to one year in jail for each weapon. That would be a beginning only. There is no right to own a mass killing machine written into any constitution. Bearing arms was meant to protect citizens fom the oft home invasions of British soldiers. How we ever let it get this far is shocking.

    5. The NRA is a lobbying group whose strict purpose is to squeeze as much money as possible fom it's members, whip them into false frenzies about taking away their rights to own any guns at all, and to lobby our government to continue this charade as if they are protecting our freedoms somehow.Logically speaking, the NRA should be ashamed of it's promotion to own semi automatic weapons. But instead it's a point of pride for them.

    6. If the Obama administration and that means Congress, doesn't enact federal law, it's time for states to start their own bans. If states can vote to ban access to Obamacare then surely they can vote to ban access to semi automatics.

    7. Bullets for specific types of guns should be prohibitively expensive. I mean if you own a gun for mere protection then you really don't need 3 to 4 hundred rounds unless you think your attackers will come in groups of twenty. If you keep a gun safely stored in your home for the intended purpose only, then how many rounds do you really need? Want to go shooting recreationally? Go to a firing range where the bullets would be largely discounted. Caveat would be all bullets you buy cheaply would have to be discharged at the shooting range itself. Want to hunt? Do you hunt with a semi automatic? Didn't think so. Hunting rifle ammo would be made affordable. So, all you gun owners should be happy. Keep your guns for protection, shoot off if you have to at a shooting range, and keep that almighty hunting spirit alive and well. But if you are in the market for large ammo rounds for certain types of guns or semis...better have a lot of money on hand and be ready for some questions as to why you need so many, since semis will be outlawed.

    •  It's because the NRA is so well organized... (0+ / 0-)

      that one needs to examine this issue from different angles.90% of the diaries here are just emotional one note responses treating this the same as the Colorado school shooting. The Colorado school shooting was an easier target for us because we could have made the NRA look totally unreasonable as those kids went to a gun show without enough id and were underage when they were allowed to amass those weapons. That case failed sensible gun control on every level. THis is not as much of an easy target.

      •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

        this is a much easier "target" (your word use, not mine). An emotional response to the ease of getting your hands on these weapons is much more powerful than a reasoned, lawful, or unlawful one. The Columbine shooting was horrific and in a sense was one of the first that was media hyped. The illegality of the gun procurement was shocking and incensed many. However, the sheer overwhelming horror and gut wrenching sadness of six year olds being massacred at close range, whose bodily conditions shocked the State Medical Examiner of over 30 years? No pravin, see this is why the NRA is hiding. This is why they won't come on the talk shows as usual and defend themselves. This is why some hardcore gun owners are defending re- banning anything semi automatic. It is precisely the emotional cliff we have all fallen off of that will end this NRA stupidity.

  •  Oh Yes.. (0+ / 0-)

    You also mention cops go off much more easily than they used to. Could it be that they are afraid of the fact that the very criminals they are in pursuit of are more heavily armed than they are? A simple traffic stop could mean being sprayed with bullets fom a semi because the driver is selling drugs to buy more semis to protect his drug trade? See the logical thing here is to arm the crime fighters with the heavy hitters while reducing access of semis to the criminals. This would take a lot of time, but again, PERSONAL ownership of anything semi automatic should incur such heavy fines and jail time, it would discourage Scarface himself from owning.

  •  This Diary is Extremely Unhelpful . . . (0+ / 0-)

    . . . at the very least, and in my opinion, is detrimental to rational discussion.

    First, “We Need to Talk About Kevin” is a work of fiction; it is not based on any actual incident. And yet you use it as if it were documentary evidence, and suitable for use as evidence in your argument: “So, I think we should be careful in how we advocate gun control using this school massacre as the example.” A nonfictional incident where someone killed 20 schoolchildren in a short time without using guns might be a suitable analogy, but a non-documentary movie is not. (In fact, in 1927, suicide bomber Andrew Kehoe murdered 38 schoolchildren using a truck packed with explosives, but that analogy would also be problematic in the argument you are making.)

    Further, this diary contains very little other than speculation in the absence of facts:

    ”The mother . . . probably would have passed all the psychological tests to own those guns; I would be curious about the family structure; there seem to be long held views by friends and acquaintances that this kid was weird with a personality disorder that may incorporate Asperger's and the lack of ability to feel pain; I wouldn't be surprised if the mother who was getting $240K in annual alimony was not even a regular teacher at that school; the parents had to know about the son's problems for a long time if one were to believe these second hand accounts.”
    Was there any abuse in the family? Was the mother too harsh? or too lenient? I noticed the parents are divorced. Did the father do his duty as a responsible father? Or was Lanza just a bad seed? (Emphasis yours)
    The answer to every one of those questions is, "We don't know." And yet, without any apparent sense of irony, you write, “Considering all the sloppy reporting . . .”

    While  your discussion of individual gun violence versus mass shootings may be relevant, a diary that consists largely of “what ifs” and “maybes,” and compares nonfiction to fiction, posted less than 24 hours after the incident in question, has no persuasive force. I would strongly recommend that you pull this diary, and rewrite/repost when you can use facts in evidence rather than speculation.

    Thanks to denial, I'm immortal. -- Philip J. Fry

    by IamGumby on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 05:55:17 AM PST

    •  It is mostly speculation at this point (0+ / 0-)

      If you are going to discuss policy of gun control based on what we have, is my diary really any more speculative than what we have seen of the NUMEROUS diaries dealing with the same angle using the same exact viewpoint on DKos? If we are dealing with facts, then there is no need really for a single diary other than Meteor Blades front page and even those could be limited to one question only - should we let semi automatics legal or not. And if we do, do we force owners to submit a safety plan with respect to access by kids to get license approval. Anything else is speculative noise on this topic. You do not know if every teacherhaving a gun would not have minimized the damage. (I don't advocate it as I make it clear with other examples of how it does more harm than good on the average).

      At least, I make my assumptions clearly labeled as assumptions. I do not pretend to mask my opinions as based on some vague study.

      I think speculation of the mother's life is open game at this point because it was her guns that caused this. However, at least I was one of the few that gave her the benefit of doubt that this son could have ordered the guns in her name. If you watch that movie, you will see some eerie similarities to the NYDailyNews account of this guy.

    •  Journalism vs blogging (0+ / 0-)

      I think I should expect more from journalism. Because my opinions on a blog will be based on what I read in the news sites. SO yes, I have a right to criticize sloppy journalism because a lot of them show up as facts to the reader.

      •  I Think I Understand . . . (0+ / 0-)

        . . . what you're saying (and I'm not using "I think" as any sort of backhanded criticism of you; I add the qualifier simply because I can't count the number of times I've misunderstood or misinterpreted someone's comments, and responded carelessly, to my regret).

        I would, however, argue that discussing this shooting in the context of what we know about other, well-documented cases is considerably less speculative than discussing it in the context of a movie that has no real-world correlate. As I mentioned, your discussion of mass shootings versus gun violence perpetrated on individuals does seem to be relevant.

        I've enjoyed and supported your other diaries, but I suppose that in this case, we will simply have to disagree.

        Thanks to denial, I'm immortal. -- Philip J. Fry

        by IamGumby on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 09:31:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  heh heh no worries (0+ / 0-)

          I just try to bring a different perspective just to get people to discuss it from all angles. I just found the diaries on DKOS related to the tragedy mindnumbingly redundant to what was already on the front page. The only reason I did this diary was that a lot of the story points inthe movie seemed so similar to the story of this messed up kid. And when my first reaction was to blame the mother for leaving the guns accessible , I was thinking of how it comparedd to the way the mother in the movie was blamed for her son's actions. THe mother in the movie is shown to be nervous about her son using the bow and arrow and she is paralyzed by dysfunction in her relationship with her husband in dealing with the situation.

          That is why I wanted a diary to focus onthe family dynamics here.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site