Skip to main content

NOTE: This seems to be of questionable veracity. Acknowledged. But we'll leave it up so discussion of the basic issue can continue.
Just found this on Huffington Post:
Nancy Lanza, the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter, was in the process of having her son committed to a psychiatric facility when he went on the mass shooting spree, a lifelong family acquaintance told Fox News.

A senior law enforcement official also confirmed that 20-year-old Lanza's anger over his mother's plan is being investigated as a possible motive for the Newtown shooting.

I've hit yet another "can't fathom" point on this.
If this is true, if she was seeking to have him committed, if he knew it and she knew he knew it.......

WHAT THE HELL WERE THOSE GUNS DOING ANYWHERE HE COULD GET AT THEM?

I'm not going to go too deeply into my own situation, but let me just say this: I have a son with emotional difficulties, on several medications, and is soon to transition back home from a residential treatment facility. He either ends up with me or his mom, that hasn't been decided yet, but my other son, his older brother, tells me stepdad has more guns than I do. I hope the man is as sensible as I am. Mom and I should probably talk about that. He comes home on the weekends now, and will be with both households for an extended period over Christmas break. I do not know what conditions exist in his Mom's house. but I do know this: there is no way he can get his hands on any firearm in my house.
I don't want to detail the measures I take, for reasons I hope would be obvious, but trust me: there is no way. It is not possible. Take my word for it.

Here is a comment I made in reply to 88kathy earlier today. I take this very, very seriously.

Not much of  a diary, I know....I just wnated to put this forth.

She was going to have him committed.
He knew it.
She knew he knew it.
And he was able to gain access to her firearms, in the face of that.

Inexcusable.  And completely unbelievable.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  This is not a diary (182+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Actbriniel, Otteray Scribe, NYFM, bubbanomics, TomP, not4morewars, Aspe4, hnichols, Azazello, Crabby Abbey, enufisenuf, jaywillie, glitterscale, Carol in San Antonio, sydneyluv, profewalt, blue aardvark, ChemBob, jfromga, expatjourno, Phil S 33, TomFromNJ, greengemini, rockhound, Steveningen, rmx2630, Marihilda, Anne was here, glorificus, misterwade, VClib, La Gitane, Texdude50, llbear, dharmafarmer, Sun Tzu, realwischeese, BobBlueMass, El Bloguero, Mentatmark, johnny wurster, mkor7, left my heart, PeteZerria, iconoclastic cat, Sandino, lineatus, ord avg guy, Linda in Ohio, BlueDragon, dickensgirl, Helpless, one of 8, maybeeso in michigan, rogerdaddy, lapin, HeartlandLiberal, Tonedevil, lgmcp, eyeswideopen, Wordsinthewind, DFWmom, Cat Servant, StrayCat, Shippo1776, Timbuk3, appledown, happy camper, Wee Mama, soarbird, BlueInRedCincy, Subterranean, Bob Love, rb608, JayC, ColoTim, redlum jak, Catkin, chantedor, mookins, MidwestTreeHugger, JeffW, WSComn, miss SPED, elfling, mamamorgaine, prettygirlxoxoxo, cassandracarolina, roseeriter, We Won, sap, jadt65, VTCC73, nellgwen, marleycat, Thousandwatts, Denver11, xynz, GreenMtnState, IL clb, Texas Lefty, Anak, rabel, collardgreens, GoGoGoEverton, hester, Wendy Slammo, Sandy on Signal, Publius2008, rbird, jan4insight, Going the Distance, Fury, librarianman, Empower Ink, Cedwyn, krwada, blackjackal, FG, Front Toward Enemy, Sean Robertson, Voter123, OMwordTHRUdaFOG, wmtriallawyer, high uintas, Ekaterin, Joieau, Jo Bob, luckylizard, stormicats, Miggles, 43north, Merry Light, c u stageguy, Lujane, AnnieR, Tinfoil Hat, Blue Bell Bookworm, Thinking Fella, OhioNatureMom, tonyahky, Cassandra Waites, gnbhull, madgranny, Ree Zen, mahakali overdrive, LynnS, OleHippieChick, blueyedace2, mofembot, fuzzyguy, wasatch, Molly Weasley, Capt Morgan, Bluesee, edsbrooklyn, FindingMyVoice, DRo, BlueInARedState, ban nock, renbear, SpamNunn, eru, Stwriley, Chaddiwicker, Dumas EagerSeton, wishbone, rubyclaire, northsylvania, chimene, dmhlt 66, kmras, puzzled, gerrilea, CA wildwoman, sboucher, Tom Seaview, PavePusher, Thestral, Calamity Jean, 88kathy, Oh Mary Oh

    about who should be able to buy what guns.
    This is a diary about the mind boggling, stunning stupidity and irresponsibility of a gun owner that, if this is true, cost 27 lives.

    •  How can you separate these two things? (42+ / 0-)
      bout who should be able to buy what guns.
      This is a diary about the mind boggling, stunning stupidity and irresponsibility of a gun owner that, if this is true, cost 27 lives.
      Why should a 'stupid, irresponsible' person have access to assault weapons?

      "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

      by eXtina on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:09:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  50% of Americans have IQs below 100 (62+ / 0-)

      and many of the people with IQs above 100 have no common sense.

      Our laws and policies must account for stupidity and foolishness. If we presume everyone to be average or above average our laws will fail to protect us.

      This is one reason why libertarianism fails.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:14:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then we're guilty until proven innocent (14+ / 0-)

        America is going to look like a very different place when we're all assumed to be violent criminals unless we prove our innocence.

        What other rights do you want to tie to an intelligence test?

        •  "Well regulated" militia means something (28+ / 0-)

          It seems to me that you (and activist right-wing judges) are inventing a right that does not exist in the Constitution.

          look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

          by FishOutofWater on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:35:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  exactly that is the crux of the matter (8+ / 0-)

            and it is about time we make that clear.

            WELL-REGULATED "militia".

            •  Which we already have - it's called (8+ / 0-)

              the National Guard. We also have a standing army, which iirc was not in place when the 2A was written.

              Handmade holiday gifts from Jan4insight on Zibbet. Get 10%off everytime with coupon code KOSSACK.

              by jan4insight on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:15:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The National Guard can be shipped overseas (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fuzzyguy, kestrel9000

                Here's the rub with your take.  Since the National Guard has basically been absorbed as a branch of the standing army, it is no longer a militia.

                I will never join the National Guard, because I don't want to be shipped overseas by a Republican President to die in a war based on lies.  So you have two courses of action available to you.

                1)  Return the National Guard to a domestic only group that I can freely join to retain my 2nd Amendment rights without being part of a standing army.

                2)  Recognize an individual rights to own guns.

                There is nothing in the Constitution that says the 2nd Amendment no longer applies if there is a standing army.  Keeping the army violates founding fathers principals more than anything else.

                •  Good point (0+ / 0-)

                  So we can either try to restore the constitutional order, or if that seems to challenging, we can simply add a false interpretation to the constitution, smugly congratulate ourselves on our Free-dumb, and go ahead murdering each other on a whim.  It is so obvious.  I thought all this death was bad, but when the alternative is messing with the National Guard's relation to the Federal government, well let the slaughter continue. We can always make more kids.

            •  The focus on "militia" is misplaced, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              1BQ, fuzzyguy

              especially now that SCOTUS has decided that

              The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
              District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

              The rights set out in the first ten Amendments are not absolute.  Consider the First Amendment (which says nothing about free speech in the context of "a well-regulated militia").  No one doubts for a minute that there are Constitutional limits on what one may and may not say.

              Even Justice Scalia recognized that (emphasis added)

              Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. [citation omitted] For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. [citations omitted]  Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

              We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” [ citations omitted]

              It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

              We must drive the special interests out of politics.… There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will neither be a short not an easy task, but it can be done. -- Teddy Roosevelt

              by NoMoJoe on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:52:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Before we go too far down the "militia" 2A road... (9+ / 0-)

            (I'm going to shamelessly copy/tweak a comment I made on another diary - too much to retype!)

            You're correct in noting that "right-wing" judges were responsible for the shift in Second Amendment precedent.  Basically, no court acknowledged an individual right to keep and bear arms until the 21st century.

            Keep in mind, however, that few Second Amendment cases (that is, cases directly addressing the Second Amendment itself) actually reach the Supreme Court.  As a result, the setting of precedent tends to stand for a VERY long time.  Before the DC v. Heller decision of 2008, the primary Supreme Court precedent on the question was US v. Miller, which was decided in 1939.  Both decisions are, of course, available online; if you really want to dig into this topic, I suggest reading both.

            In the Miller decision, you'll find that the SCOTUS researched the definition of "militia" in Constitutional terms.  As part of their decision, the Court said:

            "The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
            I would suggest that the "enrolled for military discipline" phrase is key to understanding the Constitutional importance to understanding the "well-regulated Militia" argument for the Second Amendment.  

            Now, the 2008 SCOTUS explicitly ignored that phrase in DC v. Heller:

            The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.
            That seems somewhat dodgy to me, because it implies that the "well-regulated Militia" clause is, effectively, pure fluff and meaningless in Constitutional analysis.  I think it fair to say that we have rarely seen the SCOTUS decide to completely ignore the "plain reading" of the Constitution in such a fashion.

            More relevant to this discussion, perhaps, is this portion of the Heller decision:

            Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
            So, even in the absence of the obligations inferred by membership in a "well-regulated Militia," the Second Amendment is NOT unlimited, and we can reasonably discuss further regulation of weapons, their manufacture and their sale.
          •  Then give me a domestic militia to join (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CA wildwoman

            I don't want to join a militia, I think that's a dangerous road to go down, to say that only those in a militia may be armed, as it will greatly concentrate the gun nuts.

            But the National Guard is not a militia, it is regular army and can be deployed overseas.  There is nothing in the Constitution that requires me to enlist in the military in order to secure my civil rights.  You cannot simply say that the militia is obsolete, so the 2nd Amendment no longer applies.

            You can recognize an individual right to own guns, or we can set up well regulated State militias that are not regular army and cannot be sent to fight in foreign wars.

            Also, if the National Guard is deployed and we have a domestic national disaster, then where is the militia that is necessary to defend the State?

            It is you who is trying to rewrite the 2nd Amendment out of existence.  If you won't recognize the individual right, then give me a militia to join so I can get the group right.

        •  um, guilty and stupid are not the same thing (13+ / 0-)

          Nor are stupid and UNEDUCATED. (Sadly, some of the smartest students I have in my classes at community college are the WORST educated--to the extent that many of them may even be classified as "functionally illiterate" if anyone ever came up with an accurate test for literacy).

          We are dealing with a seriously, seriously under-educated populace in this country. And we need to take that into account when determining policy.

          •  Once you think you know what's best for (5+ / 0-)

            someone else....you've crossed a line that infringes upon individual liberty.

            In any civilized society, there need to be rules - and there are rules.  They can be impoved but not to the point where you infringe on peoples rights.  You can disagree, and in the case of firearms, you may be correct - but whether you agree or not, there are basic rights our country was founded upon and infringing upon those will not go over very well.  

            We protect the Klan under "free speech" and there's not too many people who agree there a good, charitable organization......

            The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

            by ctexrep on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:33:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Individual liberty is tied to responsibility (0+ / 0-)

              and there are  plenty of laws restricting individual liberty when it is exercised to harm other people.

              Also, just because something is 'legal' doesn't make it ethical, harmless or right.

              There are too many instances where corporate lobbying has created or expanded a problem by buying political power to repeal laws enacted for the public good, but there was money to be made by.

              Something that doesn't make good sense, makes bad sense. That means someone is being deliberately hurtful & selfish. Look for motives behind actions & words.

              by CA wildwoman on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 06:36:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  the right to drive (7+ / 0-)

          ...

          What other rights do you want to tie to an intelligence test?
          The ability to pass a drivers exam  
        •  So people should just be able to do anything (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tommymet, CA wildwoman

          until they actually kill a bunch of people.

          No. Just no.

          "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

          by nosleep4u on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:00:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So, what about the people who never kill a (8+ / 0-)

            bunch of people? What should they be able to do?

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:19:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yep, drunk driving is always illegal, even if (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            frankw9, FindingMyVoice, CA wildwoman

            there's no accident and no injuries. Drunk driving is illegal because it increases the likelihood of injury.

            Owning or operating a firearm should, at a minimum, require training and certification that the person is competent to operate a firearm, just like driving.

            Owning or operating a firearm should, at a minimum, require licensing that needs periodic renewal. If you are caught storing or operating a firearm in an unsafe manner, the licensing authority should be able to revoke your license, just like driving.

            And you should have to periodically demonstrate that you continue to operate a firearm safely after your license was first issued. This is not like driving because you might need to take only a written exam to renew a driver's license. (As a former driving instructor, I support requiring a driving test every 20 years until age 60, after which the test should be administered at least every 10 years.)

            Owning or operating a firearm should, at a minimum, require proof of insurance. If your unsafe storage or operation of a firearm results in injury or property damage, the victim should not have to bear the costs of recovery/repair, nor should they need to sue you for damages.

            And the insurance company must share revocation information with the licensing authority if you've accumulated too many insurance "points," so that you lose not only your coverage, but your license as well. (I'm up in the air about whether the authority should be notified if your insurer drops you for non-payment. I can see why there might be an exception to the reporting requirement for this, but you'd still need to find new insurance or surrender the firearm.)

            The comparisons between operating firearms and a moving vehicle aren't exact. Nor should they be. But since a car is designed for transportation and a gun is designed for killing, I have no problem with making laws that regulate firearms being much more stringent than those governing driving.

            Yes, there's ample precedent for making laws that are designed to prevent catastrophes, rather than react to them after the fact.

            I'm a Democrat - I believe that government has a positive role to play in the lives of ordinary people.

            by 1BQ on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:57:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  IQ texts don't measure (3+ / 0-)

          a person's basic sense of what's right and wrong or what's just plain old evil nastiness. Empathy or whatever you call the capacity to place value on human life or any life. Some of the smartest people in the world have no basic human decency no moral compass, no soul.

          They may be great with data/science/logic but some are lacking in values that make human society a fit place to live. Humanity without the basic universal concerns for intangible qualities like love, compassion or ethics.

          There is more to being a human then having a high intelligence quota. Respect for all life and caring about other peoples well being. Lizard brains abound even in the 'smart' people. Look at the soulless smart people who are running our economy and our government.

          This woman didn't have a low IQ she made money as a stock broker. She was a 'respected' member of her community. She was paranoid about losing her stuff and in her nightmare world of screw or get screwed arming herself to the teeth wasn't crazy it was protecting herself.              

        •  Why have laws at all? (3+ / 0-)

          We are all guilty robbery until proven innocent if we have a law that bans robbery.  We all are guilty of starting a fire in the dry season if there is a ban on open fires in a drought.  

          Your argument does not hold up to logic. Banning assault weapon, or any other gun, s is just another law, and it is one that will stop slaughters.  

          We should not be fighting about equal pay for equal work and access to birth control in 2012. Elizabeth Warren

          by Leftleaner on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:49:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? (4+ / 0-)
            We are all guilty robbery until proven innocent if we have a law that bans robbery.  We all are guilty of starting a fire in the dry season if there is a ban on open fires in a drought.
            Does not compute.

            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

            by Neuroptimalian on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:10:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I was replying to this (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CA wildwoman
              Then we're guilty until proven innocent(13+ / 0-)

              America is going to look like a very different place when we're all assumed to be violent criminals unless we prove our innocence.

              If having a law makes us guilty until proven innocent then it applies in lots of situations.  

              I was not particularly clear in my point, obviously.

              We should not be fighting about equal pay for equal work and access to birth control in 2012. Elizabeth Warren

              by Leftleaner on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 02:56:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  well stupid until proven innocent (0+ / 0-)

          it's thematic

        •  that's utter bullshit. you are not (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino

          presumed guilty or being assumed violent criminals.  

          laws and regulations are not indictments.

          get a grip and stop the overtop hysteria that is truly only an attempt to obfuscate an important issue and an important fact.

          November 6, 2012: United citizens = 1, Citizens United = 0 (-9.75 / -9.05)

          by doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 02:13:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  yeah, that's one of the awesome side effects (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CA wildwoman, Sandino

          of focusing on "mental health" rather than guns. It gives you all kinds of reasons for pre-emptively designating a certain population as dangerous!

          Leave the guns free; lock the people up.

          *That's not what Kestrel is saying here, btw; I'm responding to the spin of the NRA, not what is specifically said in this diary.

          A thousand Sharkeys are invading a thousand Shires every day across our country.--James Wells

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 02:13:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  But not in Minnesota (7+ / 0-)

        Where children are above average.

        Seriously, your title made me LOL.
        Totally logical, but does anyone really believe that?

        Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

        by Helpless on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:24:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •   no common sense. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kestrel9000

        which group coined the term

        "the Great unwashed"

        Kenyan Socialism today Kenyan Socialism tomorrow Kenyan Socialism forever May his reign last 1,000 years

        by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:40:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Even an IQ of 130 comes with severe limits ... (0+ / 0-)

        on one's ability to reason and comprehend complexity.  But even those with IQs higher than Einstein himself make mistakes and sometimes make decisions we later regret.  Still, those possessing lower IQs create the vast majority of the world's problems and make life FAR worse than it could be.  My greatest fear is that, if there is an afterlife, it will be populated by idiots.  I can't think of a more depressing way to spend eternity ... with no way to end it.  It would be the ultimate cruelty ... and the greatest irony of the universe.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:00:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ted Kaczynski... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hammerhand, mahakali overdrive

        Had an IQ of about 167.

    •  This diary is simply gossip, repeating a rumor (22+ / 0-)

      that was initially reported by Fox news, and has since been discredited.

      You can try to claim some distance with your qualifier, "if true", but that doesn't cover your motive.

      Poor research, repeating gossip, no one has any way to judge motive at this point, but you want to join others GRASPING a the thinnest of straws that is was the mother's fault.

      One fact we do know, is the young man smashed his computer, smashed the hard drives, and very likely did not want his computer history to be evaluated. I'll assert my own opinion that he wanted to conceal his motive.

      This was premeditated murder, by someone who was blocked when attempting to purchase a gun, and who figured out a different way to get guns.

      Without more information, we can't know what steps she took to secure her weapons, and how he was able to circumvent them.

      •  The feminist in me DETESTS the "blame the mother" (9+ / 0-)

        trend in this story. This kid also had a father.

        But the realist in me has to face the fact that this woman owned a lot of guns and they were not secured properly.

        Is this the fault of the mother? No.

        Could she have taken measures that would have prevented it? Probably.

        Since when is the party that embraces all the top tenets of Satan allowed to call the God shots?--wyvern

        by voracious on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:42:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is the fault of the mother (20+ / 0-)

          that her firearms were not properly secured. Had they been secured, her son could not have gotten them.

          •  not until after he killed her. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            i saw an old tree today, puzzled
          •  How do we even know that? (9+ / 0-)

            The kid was supposed to be uber-bright.

            He could have picked the locks. He could gone through the house nook by nook, cranny by cranny  looking for the keys.  He could have guessed the combination. Nancy may have worn the keys around her neck. Several of the gun advocates here have suggested that wearing gun safe keys on your person is a very good idea. Ok. That makes sense to me; I mean, how else do you really protect a safe from someone you live with?

            I've read Nancy  was killed in her sleep. Maybe Adam shot her specifically to remove the keys from around her neck.

            Who would assume that keys you wear around your neck would not be safe if you live with your kid who has never shown any violence toward you? Is there evidence of prior violence toward his mother?

            I don't really care if you jump to all the conclusions that you want, but I think it's not fair to post them in public unless you were there.

            © grover


            So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

            by grover on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:01:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The fact is parents have a lot of responsibility (5+ / 0-)

              for many things.  

              In this case the "child" was a 20 year old adult.  Yes, by having firearms in her home, she was seduced by marketing and other factors into exchanging one risk for another.  We can be sure that she thought she was capable of making a rational trade off decision.

              I'm not giving much weight to all the gossip and uncorroborated statements by neighbors and members of the town and disaffected relatives who haven't seen this family member in decades.

              Do I think both Adam's estate and her own estate should be financially liable for the injuries and costs? Absolutely, since it was her firearms that were stolen and used in this premeditated murder spree.

              The problem I have with the efforts to smear the deceased character and judgment is that it's self serving - it allows people to feel a "distance" from this "irresponsible gun owner."

              •  Oh, you and I agree. (4+ / 0-)

                I've already said that the estate will pay and pay dearly. Nancy's homeowner insurance (and an umbrella policy, if she has one) will tender policy limits. The insurers will simply do what is right as soon as the families have time to move on to that step and come together on this.

                And at the same time, the smearing of Nancy's moral character is reprehensible, given that all we know is gossip and innuendo, much of it being propagated by people who have an agenda: a feint to redirect our attention.

                I don't know what she thought. I don't know what was going through her head. I don't know if she feared "end times" or if she simply bought guns to be able to socialize with what seems to be a community that does quite a bit of gun-based activities.  Some people are followers. Maybe that's all she was doing. I simply have no idea what her deal was. We may find out. We may never know. What I do know is that she's gone, shot by her own son. I know that she seems to have tried to be a good mom to a difficult son. So for now, I'll extend my compassion to her spirit, not animosity.

                She's gone. I don't see much good in despising the dead. If we learn that she made grievous mistakes, we'll learn from them. But there's not a lot that can be accomplished by despising the dead, especially when virtually no facts are known at this time.

                © grover


                So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                by grover on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:46:16 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  it's not all innuendo. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  puzzled, CA wildwoman

                  this part (that she was planning to commit him), yes, is gossip. But the fact that she took the kid to shooting ranges has been substantiated--(NYT)

                  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has determined that Adam Lanza and his mother, Nancy, visited firing ranges together and separately in recent years, according to a federal law enforcement official.

                  The official said the agency knew of only one occasion in which they had attended a firing range together. It has uncovered evidence that they both fired weapons at ranges, although it was not clear whether they had both fired weapons when they attended the range together.

                  This alone seems really questionable.

                  If the kid is only 20--and still living at home with his mom, with what, maybe one semester away at college (if that)?--sure, legally an adult, but I bet even in HER mind he was "just a kid".

                  I do think it's important that, as long as we have as many guns and gunowners as we do, these kinds of issues be talked about. Like, is it REALLY a good idea, parenting-wise, to take any kid to a shooting range, but especially if the REASON you take him to the shooting range is that you want to go, but feel you cannot let him out of your sight? For fear of? What, exactly?

                  This does not necessarily imply any "despising" or vilifying of the deceased mother who was his first victim. But if she thought this was OK, there may be others like her who also think it's OK, but who never could have imagined a scenario in which their child would murder them. That's the stuff of Freudian analysis and Greek tragedy for Christ's sake!

                  Yeah, well, welcome to the couch --grab a kleenex and let the show begin ;(

                •  The son shot her IN THE FACE ... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fuzzyguy, PinHole, mahakali overdrive

                  FOUR TIMES.  Psychologists will say he was delivering a heavy-duty message.

                  "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                  by Neuroptimalian on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:39:26 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Insurers? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fuzzyguy, LilithGardener

                  I fully expect them to invoke the clause that they have no liability for criminal acts perpetrated by a thief and murderer.

                  Do the right thing? It's an insurance company... they exist to collect premiums, not pay claims.

                  "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                  by happy camper on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:52:26 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Insurance guy here, have to correct you on this... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SoCalSal, rubyclaire, LilithGardener
                  Nancy's homeowner insurance (and an umbrella policy, if she has one) will tender policy limits.
                  Homeowner's insurance...and almost ALL forms of liability insurance, specifically exclude criminal acts.  No coverage under that, or the Umbrella.
                  •  Negligent storage of guns. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PinHole, trillian, LilithGardener

                    Nancy seems to have committed no crime. Nancy seems to have been negligent, not criminal.

                    Her estate will be sued.  

                    They can call in coverage counsel to do an analyis, assign cumis counsel to the estate, start working up the case, including hiring lots of expensive experts,  and endure tons of bad publicity for fighting the grieving families. Or they can quietly wrap this up.

                    1% liability isn't hard to prove. And  (based on the facts at hand) there appears to be 0% liability on the part of the adult victims; obviously so for the child victims who, in aggregate, will almost certainly max out policy limits.

                    Without knowing who the carriers are, I can't say for sure what they will do. But reasonable carriers, if they're already notified (which I trust Peter Lanza has done), have already reserved their cases at limits and are having executive-level discussions.

                    © grover


                    So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                    by grover on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:14:25 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Since we know he shot her first, ... (6+ / 0-)

              we know he already had some sort of access.  The cart didn't follow the horse.

              "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

              by Neuroptimalian on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:37:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  We have not yet heard how he got the firearms (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            but we do know he murdered her before taking them, and her car, to the school.

            This puts the onus for those acts on HIM, not his first victim.

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:20:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He murdered her using them, (9+ / 0-)

              not before taking them.

              •  That's true. (3+ / 0-)

                My point has a logical (chronological) fail in it.  Adam had to have access to at least one gun in order to kill his mother, unless he inflicted another injury that we don't know about, (of which there is no evidence at this point).

                My brain clearly needs more caffeine.

                © grover


                So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                by grover on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:02:24 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, to speculate (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fuzzyguy, grover

                  She could have passed out drunk or something first. There are all sorts of things he could have done to gain access to the guns.

                  We do ourselves no favors speculating, including me.

                  Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                  by mahakali overdrive on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:42:40 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, yes and no. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Catte Nappe, CA wildwoman

                    I think it's not speculation to say that the guns were insufficiently secured from someone who shouldn't have had access to them.  Whether he smashed a safe to get at them or they were unlocked is unknown.

                    Either they were secured "properly," indicating that properly isn't good enough, or they were not secured properly, indicating that you can't base your avoidance of mass shootings on trusting gun owners to be responsible.

                    •  Slippery slope potential too high (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      grover

                      If they were stored in a vault underground with encryption and a computer hacker managed to get the code...

                      etc...

                      Where do we draw the line?

                      At "reasonable attempts."

                      It's impossible to judge this without more information about the specifics. Speculation won't help. For all we know, the guns were kept in a special safe room with a combination lock that was kept in Nancy's email address and Adam hacked into it, and, and, and...

                      So yes, speculation doesn't help. Why can we simply not wait to hear what the facts suggest? Is there some reason we can't do that with this particular case even while maintaining a serious national dialogue about appropriate gun safety?

                      Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                      by mahakali overdrive on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 03:12:37 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  And that chronology (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CA wildwoman

                  means that she was a victim after she was a facilitator (probably through negligence, but still the provider of the weapons).

                •  While it seems likely - that he shot her with (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mahakali overdrive, grover

                  one of her weapons, we don't actually know that.

                  All we know is that the weapons that were found at the scene were registered to her. Until a ballistics report identifies the weapon she was killed with, as one that she owned, we don't know how he got the first weapon.

            •  "and her car, to the school." (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Catte Nappe, CA wildwoman

              Then, it's possible that SHE had stored one of the rifles in the trunk of her car.

              I'd like to point out a logical fallacy that some gun owner  think that locking a gun in the trunk is securing a weapon.

              It's not. Cars get stolen all the time.

              Any gun owner who stores a weapon in a locked vehicle - at any time - is really imposing a risk on the rest of us, if the car is stolen.

              •  So, now, because cars get stolen (0+ / 0-)

                all the time, it's a bad idea to use your car to go to the shooting range or on a hunting trip?

                Great! I just need to figure out how to get the bus driver not to call the cops when I get aboard with my .22 rifle, in its case, to go across town for target practice ... cause yeah, I live in Texas, but I don't have a CCL (just the class would cost more than my rifle did; my rifle is too small a caliber to take to class, and I don't own a pistol ... and the pistol I want would be the same caliber as my rifle, so that wouldn't qualify either) and my firearm is a rifle anyway. I cannot imagine I'd be able to walk all the way across town to the range, even if I did think that might be a good idea.

                Yep. I own a firearm.
                 I sometimes go shoot that firearm, partly for the sake of keeping in practice and partly for the sake of just doing something I enjoy, at a firing range.
                I live too far from there to walk, with a firearm even in a case, inside the city limits -- especially since I'm not the "purchaser of record" of this firearm: someone else paid for it and gave it to me as a gift -- not because I'm not legally eligible to own it.

                So it's either locked up at home or in my possession, and if I'm driving to the range it's inside my locked vehicle with me (no, I don't stop for ammo or gear on the way. That's a separate trip; the rifle goes to the range, comes home, gets cleaned, cased, and put away securely).

                Ok. But how do business owners ensure their customers can reach them (firing ranges, hunting leases) ?  Or do we wipe out the jobs for lease operators, guides, gunsmiths, and machinists as well as the guns?

                It's like dropping a pebble in a pond....

                LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:07:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Denial is denial (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Catte Nappe, CA wildwoman

                  I'm actually in favor of the right to KEEP and BEAR arms, and I'm afraid that responsible gun owners have in fact lost the narrative, now, because of a long term failure to organize for reasonable limits, and to define "best practices".

                  I'll ignore the condescending parts of your comment.

                  It's obvious to anyone that to take your firearms to the range or to hunt you have to take them with you, and that's not what I'm talking about.

                  I'm talking about the times when you leave your weapons in your locked vehicle when you go into a store, or into a school, or into a church.  Perfectly legal, in some instances, perfectly reasonable.

                  What's no longer acceptable to the wider public - is the risk that imposes on everyone else. Stolen firearms cost too much, to society, and those who manufacture and purchase them are not bearing their share of the risk.

                  •  I apologize -- I did not mean to be condescending. (3+ / 0-)

                    Stolen firearms are a threat. We saw that Friday. That's incontrovertible.

                    I am not opposed -- please do look at my comment history here, at least -- to treating firearms seriously; I believe responsible owners keep in practice, maintain their weapons and their ability to use them safely through regular practice and cleaning, and store their weapons securely when not in use.

                    I am not opposed to training users for firearms at least as stringently as we train users for automobiles. The 2nd Continental Congress didn't just protect the right of private citizens to own firearms; it mandated what firearms private citizens aged 18-45 MUST own, along with the ammunition and spare parts for their operation. Naturally being Congress they didnt' offer to remunerate the citizens, but they did make it a crime to sell the mandatory firearms in times of economic distress -- as well as to confiscate them for debt or taxes.

                    The Swedes, or the Swiss, or maybe both, do something similar today, as do the Israelis.

                    I wouldn't be opposed to that -- there's a mandatory training and an annual exercise for requalification. Heck, let's expand it to every citizen of sound mind and body aged 18-65, and you show up every six months for your safety class and requalification.

                    But even for somebody like me who only owns one firearm and who lives in Texas and "who's only got a .22" ... there already are restrictions. Law-abiding people abide by them. They work in those cases.

                    They don't work in cases like we saw Friday.

                    LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                    by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 01:47:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Those are important ideas - (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BlackSheep1, CA wildwoman

                      and yes, I agree that along with the right to keep and bear arms the constitution imposed an obligation on male members of the states.

                      The cost should be borne by those who want civilians to be armed, and who profit from civilians' purchase of firearms and ammunition.

                      Just like some states differentially regulate which stores can sell beer, which can sell wine and beer, and which can sell beer, wine and liquor, we would benefit from differential licensing of firearms.

                      The details of which I'll save for another diary - since this is not a policy diary.

                    •  PS Apology noted and accepted nt (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BlackSheep1, CA wildwoman
                      •  I think you're positing some useful ideas too (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        CA wildwoman, LilithGardener

                        Different solutions for different situations seem to work better than "one size fits all" ideas that don't take into account different details of the people living in those situations, don't they?

                        And you're welcome. I really didn't mean to be nasty. Just ... trying to figure out how to go to a place where things work better for everybody, and ask that we not forget the law of unintended consequences on the way....

                        LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                        by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 03:41:56 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Outright bans won't be acceptable (0+ / 0-)

                          - the political cost will be too high, and the technology/law can too easily be circumvented or superceded.

                          We need graded licensing and costs, that is proportional to the risk of lethal and non-lethal consequences.

                          Someone pooh-poohed all the antique guns collected by the Camden police department, but to me those represent 1000 weapons that will no longer impose a risk of accidental shooting, or suicide, or be used in aggravated assaults.

                          Sure at least some of the money will be used to "upgrade" to a newer firearm, which should be rightfully regulated.

                          As Elizabeth Warren once said (paraphrasing) - we don't allow exploding toasters to be sold in this country, why do we allow exploding mortgages?  

                          We now are asking why do we allow randomly exploding devices (which all firearms are) to flow so unrestricted into the public sphere?

                          The unpredictable nature of crime involving firearms, impulsive shooters, and accidental firearms discharges makes these devices RANDOM exposures for too many people. It's a public health problem.

                          •  wait. wait, please. I don't want to fight, but (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            I don't think firearms randomly explode, either. How did you reach that conclusion?

                             

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 05:09:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't think that either - that firearms explode (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BlackSheep1

                            randomly. But every round fired, even from a zipgun, is a controlled explosion pushing a projectile.

                            I enjoyed learning to shoot, and am proud that if push came to shove, I could shoot to kill.  I learned to shoot at 22 rifle at the age of 10. I have no idea where the gun was stored, but I'm sure it was never locked up in any way. My mother shot ground hogs out of the kitchen window. (It was a farm, miles from the nearest neighbor). Those of us who are familiar with firearms, who find proficiency training useful, and who enjoy hunting or shooting for sport, may find it hard to conceive of how others' who have no pleasant or ordinary experience with guns experience gun violence.

                            To people who have no exposure to firearms, and have no experience with benign storage of firearms, all they see and hear is what they see on the news, gunshots in their neighborhood, friends, relatives, someone they knew shot, or committed suicide.

                            And in that community - if it's true that gun "enthusiasts" were so "enthusiastic" that they were setting up private shooting ranges, unlicensed, where people living in suburban residential zoned properties could routinely hear gunshots, that unlawful use by hobbyists adds to the unpredictable "outlaw" nature of the problem, for everyone.  

                            One question I haven't seen addressed is how did Adam get off 4 shots early on a Friday morning, in a QUIET suburban neighborhood, without any of the neighbors hearing a thing.  If the neighborhood had experience hearing gunfire from unlicensed private target practice, could it be that someone heard pop, pop, pop, pop that morning and didn't even think to call the police?

                            Or did he have some kind of silencer?

                            That's a potential example of what I have in mind, that IF lawful gun owners did not stand up against things like private target practice at unlicensed ranges, or if the police wrote citations and then looked the other way, then they (collectively, gun owners and those who didn't own guns) may have effectively normalized the sound of gunfire in a residential neighborhood (where it doesn't belong).

                            Would that be that a tragedy or is that a scandal?

                            Rhetorical question - I really don't know - but to people with a growing frustation and fear of gun violence it just adds to the "randomness" aspect of the perceived danger.

                            When in reality, it's a breakdown in law and order, as much as the sound of gunfire in a city neighborhood reflects a breakdown of law and order.

                          •  in that community [Newtown CT ] nt (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BlackSheep1
                          •  I see. I'm glad I asked you to wait. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            You're right about the breakdown in law and order. You're right about the crimes.  You're right about the unpredictability of humans.

                            You've been around firearms; my experience is mostly from a tour as an Air Force marksmanship instructor, in the late 1970s, so it's limited. But I didn't meet firearms capable of random explosions. Given the nature of my job, I'm pretty sure if my senior NCOs or my Tech School instructors had seen such incidents, they'd've talked about what happened, and what the procedure was to prevent repeating it.

                            You've raised some serious questions about what went on before last Friday in that quiet town in Connecticut, and they're all good ones. I don't have a good answer for your question; I'm sure this crime certainly should qualify as both a tragedy, and a scandal.

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:40:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A local gun range had been destroyed in a fire (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BlackSheep1

                            2 years ago. There was more demand than local capacity for shooting legally.

                            http://www.firegroundimages.com/...

                            NY Times reports long waiting lists to join licensed shooting ranges, as one reason for the illegal shooting ranges.

                            http://www.nytimes.com/...

                            The more I think about it - the more I expect that someone did hear the first 4 shots fired that morning, and did not  call the police, because it wasn't that out of the ordinary. Maybe the time of day was a little unusual, but it wasn't unusual to hear multiple gun shots.

                            Who, in their right mind, NOW, will ever admit that they heard the first four shots and didn't bother to call the police.

                            It's just not realistic that no one heard the first four shots, unless Adam had a gun with a silencer.

                            If the local police were incapable of shutting down illegal ranges, and that lead to normalization of gunfire in a residential neighborhood, will the police even do a thorough investigation?

                            And that means the whole community bears some of the responsibility for prioritizing their hobby shooting and hunting for food over the rights of others' reasonable expectations of basic safety in a residential neighborhood and school.

                            It's still a tragedy, and it's also a crime, somewhat like a multi-unit building fire where the main fire alarm was disabled because it went off too often when someone was cooking.

                            It will also make it easier and more convenient for all those neighbors and "friends" to focus on "she was just a reckless and irresponsible gun owner" to ease the pain of  why this happened.

                          •  yes. you're right, especially when it comes (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            to the first murder victim's reputation. It's begun already ...

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:47:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  PS - I live in New York now (0+ / 0-)

                            and don't have a firearm. Decided the risk and liability wasn't worth it and that I would take my chances along with a few million other people, all dependent on public services.

                          •  I salute you. Really. I can't imagine living (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            in NYC. I don't think I even want to visit. Although I hear that Public Library -- the one with the Lions at the door -- is really something.

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:29:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It is! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BlackSheep1

                            Although I hear that Public Library -- the one with the Lions at the door -- is really something.

                          •  if you ever get a chance, post a picture here (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            with snow on the lions? Please!

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:24:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  There's a difference between (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener

                  a car being stolen and being carjacked.  If she was on her way to the range, that's one thing.  If it was stored in the trunk, that's negligent.

                  •  I drive a pickup. Rifle behind seat, doors locked. (0+ / 0-)

                    Carjacker'd still probably get the rifle with the pickup, but not without a fight on my part. All I can promise is to do my best to take care of my gear, my home, my livestock, my family ...

                    LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                    by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 03:47:29 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not letting her off the hook. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            It was as much her fault as anyone other single person's -- even his, given his evidently diminished mental capacity.

            To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

            by UntimelyRippd on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:54:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not either. She clearly made a tragic (0+ / 0-)

              mistake. The problem is there is a range of behavior that firearms owners would consider "responsible" - but one person's judgment about responsible can easily be judged after the fact.

              Those who self identify as a responsible gun owner may take many precautions, but if they really ever thought this could happen to them, they wouldn't keep the guns in the home. Therein lies the problem.  

          •  He shot her with an unsecured gun. (0+ / 0-)

            There was at least one available that he could get to on his own.

            This was a huge mistake - no doubt about it.

            Something that doesn't make good sense, makes bad sense. That means someone is being deliberately hurtful & selfish. Look for motives behind actions & words.

            by CA wildwoman on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:52:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Do we know (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mahakali overdrive

          how the guns were secured?  Or even if they were kept in the home?

          Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

          by winsock on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:00:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  To be fair (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          his father was separated and I think lived elsewhere. I do not blame Nancy Lanza at all, btw.

          •  They were divorced and he was remarried. (0+ / 0-)

            I'm betting it will turn out to be that the divorce occurred because she was too overbearing toward the husband, too, and drove him away.

            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

            by Neuroptimalian on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:45:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Is this snark? (0+ / 0-)

              (Sorry, my meter is broken lately.)

              •  No, not snark. (0+ / 0-)

                The mother was repeatedly reported to be pushy and overbearing in her treatment of her son.  It's no leap in logic to believe she treated the husband similarly.

                "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                by Neuroptimalian on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:53:40 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Where are you getting this info, man? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lirtydies, CA wildwoman
                  repeatedly reported to be pushy and overbearing in her treatment of her son
                  This is the second thing you've written as fact with no source that I haven't seen anywhere.

                  My BS meter is going off.

                  I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                  by coquiero on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:22:17 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Neuroptimalian is letting his lizard brain lead (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lirtydies

                    the thinking here.  

                    •  I'm no "he". (0+ / 0-)

                      As to the sources, they're all over the Internet as I've read this statement on quite a few websites now.  And I've written NOTHING "as fact", repeatedly qualifying by saying that such-and-such "is being reported". Y'all can believe, or not believe, whatever you want.

                      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                      by Neuroptimalian on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:19:02 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  OK, you're repeating gossip (0+ / 0-)

                        Sorry for the he/she misnomer.

                        And, BTW, I didn't mean that you have a reptilian brain, just that you're letting the fear based part of your brain, the amygdala, lead your rational based part of your brain.

                        It's just too easy for "a neighbor said" or "someone said"... to blame the situation on an irresponsible gun owner,

                        and is much harder for a town/neighborhood to cope with the likelihood that someone in that QUIET residential suburban neighborhood probably heard 4 gunshots that early Friday morning, and didn't bother call the police...

                        because hearing gunshots in the morning, in that residential neighborhood (from illegal, unlicensed shooting ranges) wasn't that out of the ordinary.

                        It's much easier to start and spread gossip about the first murder victim, who tragically traded her life and the lives of others for her risky hobby.

                        http://www.nytimes.com/...

          •  He lives in Stamford, CT - reportedly did not (0+ / 0-)

            know about the shooting until he drove into the driveway and asked a reporter, "Is there something I can help you with?"

      •  It is still beyond stupid to have guns like that (13+ / 0-)

        in the home with a kid like that and only a single parent -- e.g., there was a report in several news outlets that a friend reported that Nancy Lancy told her a year ago that Andy was burning himself with a lighter.  No sane mental health professional would start to see, or continue seeing, a kid like that if he or she knew about both the self-injurious behavior and the guns unless the mother got the guns out of the house.*  So either Andy was not seeing a therapist or Andy and his mother were not keeping the therapist fully informed about what was going on in the home.

        *Said on the basis of 40+ years working on acute psychiatric units and as an outpatient therapist, mostly with severely disturbed adolescents & young adults, including 5 years as Director of a community mental health center.  

        •  P.S. You can't get a 20-year-old committed in (11+ / 0-)

          almost any state unless he has taken some significant action indicating he's an immediate danger to himself or others or unless he's an immediate danger to himself because he can't meet his basic needs (e.g., too depressed to eat, too disorganized to bathe, etc.).   (The other possibility is if you have power of attorney because the kid has been declared incompetent to handle his own affairs, but that's extremely rare.)  

          Thus, it's unlikely the mother could have gotten Andy committed if "all" he was doing was relatively minor self-injurious behavior, even if he had been verbally threatening violence to himself, her, or others.  And, even she did successfully get him committed, all he would have had to do to get out within a matter of days would have been to stop making threats and/or desist from any self- injurious behavior for a few days.  (Of course, opportunities on a locked ward for such behavior would be limited since he wouldn't have a lighter, matches, sharp knives, straight razors, etc. and would be under almost constant observation.).  

               So, unless Mom was woefully uninformed, I doubt she was trying to get him involuntarily  committed as any kind of long-term solution.

        •  The Daily Mail reported that there were no (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lirtydies, murrayewv, Brit

          psychiatric medications found in the home.

          There will be a lot more investigation before we really have any understanding of what went wrong with this young man.

          •  It's possible medications were prescribed ... (0+ / 0-)

            but he refused to take them and thus prescriptions hadn't been filled in a long time.  A lot of mentally ill people make that choice, sometimes because they hate the side effects.

            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

            by Neuroptimalian on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:57:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I share your views about the risk of (4+ / 0-)

          weapons in the home. We haven't even begun to come to terms with the distributed, imposed cost on all of the rest of us, with "lock down drills" and so on.

          We have a huge mis-pricing of the risk. The people who choose to carry the risk, are not paying for the risk.

          We are all paying for firearm violence and now the "public" who don't want to constantly pay for the escalating risk will demand changes in policy and law, some of which may help, and some of which may be ineffective.

        •  Picking of nits (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, CA wildwoman

          It is Nancy Lanza, not Lancy; and the son was Adam, not Andy.

          "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

          by Catte Nappe on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:30:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  "Discredited" where? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CA wildwoman

        The closest thing I've read to it being "discredited" is that it was said to be a fact known in the community, but there were no direct quotes.  That tells me it's likely true and could still be proven to be so, as opposed to something completely made up that not one person had heard before.

        What we apparently have is a boy who was both smart and uncommunicative.  It'll take awhile to piece together what he may have been thinking and what motivated him to act, and that probably won't occur until/if we hear from the father and brother; i.e., those close enough to know enough to provide actual insight.  But it speaks volumes that neither father nor brother had communicated with Adam for at least a couple of years.  

        I've heard several claim that the mother was extremely overbearing (and wouldn't doubt that that's what led to the divorce).  I've read she pushed Adam very hard, and am assuming she eventually began pushing him to try and become independent, perhaps because even she didn't want to deal with his problems anymore, but he felt that was impossible and did what he did to prevent it from happening.  

        Yes, some of the above is theoretical, but the minds of thinking people just won't stay blank until verified information comes along.  We'll all try to extrapolate, but our interim conclusions are just that ... and we know they have no meaning in the overall realm of things.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:29:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You extrapolate everything... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sukeyna, LilithGardener, CA wildwoman

          ...and miss the glaringly obvious: the gunman had access to an assault weapon and multiple rounds.

          That's what makes the US different to most other countries with the same incidence of mental health problems

          The Fall of the House of Murdoch -with Eric Lewis and all the latest Leveson evidence out now!

          by Brit on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:25:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  A parent pushing a 20yr old to grow up (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Neuroptimalian

          isn't outside the realm of possibility.

          I speak from experience - it's scary to believe your kid is not going to be able to survive outside the home. The kid is arguing with you to be allowed to be 'independent & adult' though they don't understand what that entails. As the parent, maybe you don't feel safe with them at home either.

          His father & brother could have felt endangered by him - I stress COULD.

          Mom will look 'overbearing & controlling' to those with ignorant opinions. Her experience is that her kid doesn't know how to act safely or politely by himself, so she gives directions. It's reality.

          Something that doesn't make good sense, makes bad sense. That means someone is being deliberately hurtful & selfish. Look for motives behind actions & words.

          by CA wildwoman on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:38:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The facts released today ... (0+ / 0-)

            make the likely story even more grim:  It seems that Mom had spent the previous three days on a mini-vacation at a swanky hotel.  I'm betting it will turn out that she had a new boyfriend (possibly even a married one).  You can imagine what all that would entail.

            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

            by Neuroptimalian on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:09:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I have read elsewhere (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        that the story of him being refused when trying to purchase a gun is false.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:48:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Annalize5, sukeyna, LilithGardener

        Whatever the ultimate investigation proves about the mental condition of the gunman, or the relationship with his mother, there's a simple glaring fact we DO know.

        The gunman had access to weapons which would have been illegal in the US in 2004

        As I've said on my recent diary on this subject, the catastrophe of Newtown cannot be put down to mental health issues.

        If mental illness were the key factor in multiple gun homicides, other countries would regularly experience similar acts of carnage. But they don’t.

        The Fall of the House of Murdoch -with Eric Lewis and all the latest Leveson evidence out now!

        by Brit on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:23:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The "slipperly slope" we have to cope with here (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brit, CA wildwoman

          is:

          If we enact licensing and registration restrictions, then:

          Only criminals would have guns, and use them to shoot people.

          Oh, wait?  It's not only criminals?

          Ok, then only criminals and crazy people use guns to shoot people.

          Oh, what? It's no only criminals? Not only crazy people.

          Then, for sure, it's only criminals, crazy people, and IRRESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS, whose firearms are used ot shoot people.

          It's a crock - there's no reliable definition for "responsible gun owner," or "mentally ill," or even what "criminal" means.

          And comparison to other countries, as you point out, proves it.

      •  It's been debunked? (0+ / 0-)

        It was claimed by a military guy, a family friend, and the son of a pastor in town, and corroborated by police (as in the diary).

        I'd be curious for a link to the debunking.

        I know the media has gotten it wrong again and again and again.

        Other friends did say, in various articles, that they were planning to move to Washington soon but didn't specify why.

        Someone stated that she had recently filed for legal conservatorship over Adam.

        I'd be curious to know if this weren't true, but again, I take all that I read with a huge grain of salt unless sources name themselves, and even then...

        Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

        by mahakali overdrive on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:39:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You might have a point if those were the only (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slinkerwink, grover, SilentBrook

      firearms he could have gotten his hands on, instead of just some of the untold number.

      So how safe, really, are you from your son?

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:27:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't consider him dangerous. (11+ / 0-)

        But as long as he's on those psych meds, I take zero chances.
        I take zero chances anyway.

        •  And on meds, or not, safe, or not, the fact is he (0+ / 0-)

          can and will possess a firearm if that's where his thought process takes him.

          The choices here never were moms gun or no gun.

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:47:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't understand what "zero chances" means (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gramofsam1, atana, LilithGardener

          if you store guns on your property.

          No door lock, no gun safe is truly impenetrable. Even alarms only notify you after the fact that someone has broken the barrier.

          I mean, sure, if he really wants to get a gun, he can get one outside the house as well. But I hope that you aren't placing too much faith in a system that might fail, for your family's sake. Very little in life has zero probability.

          © grover


          So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

          by grover on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:07:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  so how's the gun safe different from the school? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kestrel9000, high uintas, fuzzyguy

            No door lock is truly impenetrable.

            A school shouldn't advertise that it's defenseless, IMO.

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:23:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The problem is we are at a tipping point (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              grover, Catte Nappe, CA wildwoman

              - where the public is sick and tired of paying for all the things that people feel they have to do to protect themselves from people with easy access to guns.

              It's a mis-pricing of risk. There is no other product in society where the safety/risk of injury is not born first by the manufacturer and purchaser.  

              Instead of teaching English and Math, administrators and teachers must review their shooter response plans, and practice lockdown drills.  

              Unfortunately, responsible gun owners have not taken a lead on providing the rationales, the research, the political platform to push back against those who think that the public should bear the cost, bear the risk.

              "Responsible gun owners" include a wide range of people, and we ALL are tired of paying for the many, many mistakes and carelessness, and greed, and selfishness.

              •  The assumption that guns cause violence ignores (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fuzzyguy, SpamNunn

                that large -- very large -- numbers of gun owners do not go out and mow down malls or McDonalds' or classrooms full of nonthreats. Some of those gun owners are just like Nancy Lanza -- or me, for that matter. They comply with the laws of the country, and they own firearms for hunting or target shooting. They keep those firearms safely stored at home, and they've taught their children how to safely shoot, maintain, and store those guns; they go hunting with their firearms or they go target shooting or they maintain their firearms to protect their livestock or their families or themselves, or maybe their homes.

                Nobody's conveniently compiled those statistics, except maybe the NRA; and given the NRA's political leanings and penchants for extremism, I wouldn't trust their numbers without backup.

                How many times did Adam Lanza not act out his desire to murder his mother, steal her firearms and automobile, then murder 20 children and four adults before committing suicide? We don't know. That didn't make the news. Never has, never will.

                We DO know how many times Nancy Lanza took her legally purchased and privately owned firearms from her home, drove to that school, shot her way inside, and murdered everyone she saw before killing herself.

                Not a single time.

                None.
                Zee-ro.
                Not one.

                We also know how many times that Sig Sauer, that Glock, and that Bushmaster left Nancy Lanza's home of their own volition, stole her car and carried each other to that school, shot their way inside, and murdered everyone they came to bear upon.

                Zee-ro.

                Not one single time.

                All the fearmongery and "I don't like guns so nobody should have guns" propaganda in the world isn't going to change those two facts.
                It won't change three more facts, either: Adam Lanza committed those murders. Then he killed himself. We are left to mourn his victims -- or slander them, depending on our choosing -- and wonder what made him do that.

                LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 01:13:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry. (3+ / 0-)

                  Guns resulting in injuries is not an "assumption." It is a fact.

                  Thousands of families had baby walkers too who and their babies did not have any injuries. But a small percentage of families who had them, had a child who got injured. After enough injuries occurred the walkers were banned from sale in the U.S. There does not have to be cause and effect in every single situation to result in the decision that something should not be broadly marketed.

                •  You do love your straw men it seems (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener, CA wildwoman

                  Of course guns don't "cause" violence. Guns do make it easier for people to act on violent impulses, and to do more damage than they might with other means.

                  "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

                  by Catte Nappe on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 01:58:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I don't like guns because I've sat in the living (3+ / 0-)

                  rooms of parents of children seriously injured or killed  by guns. I've sat there while they cried, and screamed, and sat there almost catatonic.

                  Sometimes these incidents end up on the news.

                  Often they don't.

                  So you don't know.

                  I don't care how large your font is, you don't seem to understand how dangerous guns are.

                  The CDC ranks firearms as the fifth biggest killer of children ages 5-9;  the 3rd biggest ages 5-14; and the second biggest ages 14-19.

                  That's homicide, not suicide.  (Suicide has its own ghastly set of numbers.)

                  http://www.cdc.gov/...

                  Guns kill children. They kill a lot of American children each year. The fact that the MSM doesn't report on it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

                  It does.

                  I don't care what your "very large" numbers of gun owners do.  Over a thousand American children are killed every year due to guns. Homicide.

                  Fearmongery?  Really?

                  One child, one set of parents whose lives have been shattered is too many. Then again, I've looked in the eyes of those parents.

                  © grover


                  So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                  by grover on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 02:34:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  story posted by Fox (6+ / 0-)

      and not corroborated by a single legitimate news source.

      mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

      by wewantthetruth on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:32:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would encourage people to take (35+ / 0-)

      all of these reports with a grain of salt. I have never seen a story with so much misinformation. I was in the newsroom when it broke and most of the weekend and pretty much everything we reported was wrong. "Sources" were all over the map and almost all wrong.

      Most of the people taking a hard line against us are firmly convinced that they are the last defenders of civilization... The last stronghold of mother, God, home and apple pie and they're full of shit! David Crosby, Journey Thru the Past.

      by Mike S on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:36:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Mom's sanity (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atana

      or anyone who has this many weapons and this kind of weaponry needs to be called into question.

      "To recognize error, to cut losses, to alter course, is the most repugnant option in government." Historian Barbara Tuchman

      by Publius2008 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:10:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  At the hear of it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      I think much of this debate comes down to a simple question...how many LEGAL gun owners are irresponsible like the mother of the shooter, and how many LEGAL gun owners are responsible like Kestrel?

      The degree to which gun control is required is determined by that question.  

      By my quick search, it looks like there are about 15,000-20,000 accidental shooting per year (about 600 fatalities).  It is harder to know how many shootings (like the one in Newtown) were intentional, but the result of negligence of a LEGAL gun owner (the recent shooting CO would be another case of this).

      When we add to that the vast number of times some kid manages to get their hands on their parents gun, but doesn't shoot anybody...I think a strong case can be made that irresponsible LEGAL gun owners are epidemic. Let's face it, almost every accidental shooting, many of the intentional shootings, and every instance where a young child gets-a-hold of a gun is the result of an irresponsible gun owner.

      So, what doe we do?

      As Kestrel has said, change laws holding legal gun owners responsible for their weapons.  Mandate trigger locks, better systems for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and them mentally ill, etc. etc. etc.

      I welcome Kestrel's recognition that those things are important.

      Those of us who favor more restrictions, at some level, base it on another argument--that all the above rules are necessary...but they will never be enough.  Some kids, mentally ill and others are gonna get guns.  Not all gun crimes are committed by the young or insane, in fact most are not.  Until somebody engages in their first crime, they cannot be denied because they are felons.

      At some level, many shootings are done by owners who were legal owners until the moment they first shot somebody.

      So...given that trigger locks and such will not sufficiently reduce the damage done by irresponsible gun owners and first time criminals--we need to reduce the lethality of the guns that are available while maintaining sufficient lethality for hunting and personal defense.  That said, any gun that can kill a deer can kill a person.  The goal, however, is to make it far harder to kill the 5th, 10th or 20th person.

      Together, preventive laws and reduction in the lethality in guns available to the general public could significantly reduce the number of deaths.

      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

      by Empty Vessel on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:41:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Great question (0+ / 0-)

      as to why those guns weren't locked up with this psycho in the house. I wondered that days ago. But supposing they WERE, and this sadistic bastard tortured his mother into unlocking them.

    •  i want to say that if you take the larger view, (0+ / 0-)

      the compassionate view, there were actually 28 lives lost.

      the shooter was his own victim, true, but still a victim of his own mind.

      November 6, 2012: United citizens = 1, Citizens United = 0 (-9.75 / -9.05)

      by doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:42:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  this has been reported days ago (9+ / 0-)

    obviously, gun control laws  would have helped, because she wasn't able to be a responsible adult

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:45:52 AM PST

  •  Responsible adults/ gun owners (15+ / 0-)

    I don't even like the idea of guns in a home with children.

    Too many instances of "accidental deaths" by guns.

  •  "committing" someone (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, blue aardvark, Gooserock

    is an extreme measure, and not necessarily the best, far from it. I think this parent failed on many levels.

    There are very few subjects which do not interest or fascinate me.

    by NYFM on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:48:27 AM PST

  •  Check the source. (17+ / 0-)

    It's Fox, and they're quoting one neighbor.

    Yet to see corroboration on this one, so I'm treating it as fox trying to shift the blame again.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:48:45 AM PST

  •  I saw that report too--it basically amounts (8+ / 0-)

    to "gossip", which may be the most reliable source we have right now.....

    But my thought was: holy shit, the woman loved her guns more than her own son, is that it?

    (The other point being that since she never wanted to leave him alone, she took him to the shooting range with her).

    Hmm. I've got a mentally ill kid and a house full of guns. I think I'll lock up the kid so I can keep playing with the guns.

    Yeah, if I were her son, that might have put me over the edge too!

    •  it is such a rumor that (16+ / 0-)


      the father of the man interviewed by FoxNews, a pastor in a nearby town, contacted the media and his son to debunk it.  There is no substance to the rumor, and the "law enforcement official" who 'verified it' did nothing of the kind.  The comments by the detective were mere speculation and based on no evidence whatsoever except that family and friends had said Adam was 'troubled.'

      "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

      by louisev on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:51:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "reliable source"?? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grover

      actually not.

      mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

      by wewantthetruth on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:38:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "may be" and "right now" (0+ / 0-)

        I said it was "gossip"--and I was the first person in this thread to point this out.

        What I know about "gossip" in my neighborhood is that it is sometimes true.

        Right NOW, it's really all we have to go on.

        •  point is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PsychoSavannah

          while it may all you may be able to go by, the source is, in fact, not reliable.

          me? I am willing to be patient and wait for facts to come out.

          outside of those actually involved, we have no need to know anything "right NOW".

          it's the same prurient interest as in when people stop on the highway hoping to view death and dismemberment.

          rumors, gossip and innuendo do nothing to honor those who lost their lives in Newtown.

          mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

          by wewantthetruth on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:30:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I concede. And the "rubbernecking" ? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            i saw an old tree today

            Yeah, well, what are you gonna do?

            ....I'm normally not as "obsessed" with these kinds of stories, and normally not even that interested in what happens in "suburbia" because it's just not my world. I deal with a different species of gun violence, on a daily basis: what else can I do? It's where I live. And I love living here, really, except for the poverty and the gun violence I see around me every day. There are other things about the place I live--my neighbors?--that make it worthwhile.

            But this one hit me. Hard. I found myself waking up in the middle of the night, just shaking my head and trying to comprehend how we in this country have allowed this shit to get so far out of control that twenty fucking first graders just got gunned down a week before Christmas.

            Yeah. Christmas. You know, one of CHRISTianity's holiest days of the year.

            I am teacher, and have taught at every level from pre-K to graduate students, and at just about every end of the socio-economic scale.

            The fact that this was a classroom situation. That the victims were mostly first-graders. Fucking FIRST GRADE! ...

            That is what drives me to seek answers. And because the incident has impacted me so profoundly, I'm sorry, but I can't just shut down my brain and say, "Brain, stop. Stop trying to figure it out. You don't have enough information to go on."

            So, yes, I do take into account reports--however unreliable or not--in the attempt to find some plausible scenario for what the hell just went down here.

            Ultimately, yes, we are simply going to have to wait and see. It will come out in the end.

            In the meantime, I think the public discussion of all the possible scenarios and factors to be taken into account are a good thing--it is causing all of us to look at many issues that we've swept under the carpet for too long. Issues like mental health, mental health care, America's love affair with guns and violence, etc. And that is a good thing.

            I wouldn't have put this diary on the REC list, and did not recommend it. But I don't think it's a bad thing to have it out there and up for discussion.

            And with that, though, I am also going to have to bug out of here.

            •  thanks for your thoughtful respone (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              grumpelstillchen

              if you read any other posts on this site, I am not a trouble maker.  i want the truth as much as anyone and also get frustrated with the delays.

              I can empathize with you. I am a 58 year old male, never a teacher, but I have not been able to let this go, not do I believe I need to or should.

              I cannot stop responding emotionally with no warning, babies, the fucker killed babies.

              I agree public discussion is warranted and needed but I'd also challenge all of us to do whatever we can, even small things help, outside of this forum.

              if this situation does not motivate us to make real change, nothing ever will.

              I could give a shit about the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling.  I won't this to finally get the focus it needs and deserves. we've lost too many of us over the years.

              thanks again.

              mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

              by wewantthetruth on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:13:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  thanks, I appreciate your comments (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              grumpelstillchen
          •  I think every kossack should read (0+ / 0-)

            the book "Columbine".  MOST of the myths you've had for 10+ years now will be utterly dispelled.

            David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

            by PsychoSavannah on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:57:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  As I've said before (11+ / 0-)

    mentally ill people slap people all the time. That doesn't kill 20 kids. This can't be blamed on mental illness.

    I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
    @indiemcemopants on Twitter

    by Scottie Thomaston on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:50:08 AM PST

    •  If this is true (4+ / 0-)

      I lay the blame upon the inexcusably stupid decision to have those guns in ANY way accessible.

    •  Good point. It is a certain form of illness or (0+ / 0-)

      evil.  Pick your term.

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:53:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Umm- no more than mentally " healthy" people. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devis1, i saw an old tree today

      Statistically, we're a lot less likely to strike you than " normals".
      But don't let that ruin a good narrative.

      •  I don't find statistics compelling here. (0+ / 0-)

        The Tucson shooter, Cho in Virginia Tech, Mr. Lanza in CT - none of them poster children for normality.

        Heck, maybe Timothy McVeigh was normal - and he used bombs in OK City.

        Perhaps you should consider that in YOUR narrative.

        **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

        by glorificus on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:14:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's the opposite (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Remembering Jello

        of what I was saying. I wasn't implying mentally ill people slap people more at all. At least it wasn't my intent. Rather I was intending to say that it was the tool used that killed 20 people. If a mentally ill person - or anyone else - slaps someone that doesn't generally result in 20 deaths. It was the shooting of a gun.

        Sorry if it seemed like I was saying the opposite of that.

        I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
        @indiemcemopants on Twitter

        by Scottie Thomaston on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:18:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Scottie Thomaston: the tool USED (0+ / 0-)

          by a MURDERER.

          Can nobody see this? It was NOT the firearm.  It was the SHOOTER.
          It was NOT the shooter's MOTHER.  It was the SHOOTER.

          Adam Lanza, for reasons we may never understand, MURDERED his mother. Then he stole her car and her firearms and he MURDERED 25 other people. Then he suicided.

          The shooter did the same thing a guy in China did with a knife, the same day. He attacked a school.The guy in China has been caught. The 18 children he mutilated survived -- or at least that's the last news I heard on the incident.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

          by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:03:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is the second time (0+ / 0-)

            ...that I mention that this is not the order. He did not kill his mother and then steal her guns.  He first stole a gun and then shot his mother with the gun. So there was a time when she was alive that he was able to access the guns.

    •  Nonsense (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      trillian

      A guy slaughters 20 kids and his own mother, how is he not mentally ill?  The mental illness is the explanation, it's not "to blame" whatever that means.  Certainly someone mentally ill should not have access to guns, and I say this as someone with lifelong depression.  I should not have access to guns, for my own safety.  For other types of mental illness, restricting gun access is for the safety of others as well as the ill individual.  

      In any event, slaughtering children is not a normal human behavior.  A mentally healthy individual's mind would not permit such behavior to take place.  

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:58:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not saying he (0+ / 0-)

        is or is not mentally ill. I'm saying his mental illness or lack thereof didn't kill 20 people. The tool he used did.

        I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
        @indiemcemopants on Twitter

        by Scottie Thomaston on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:19:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's more complicated than that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BlackSheep1, happy camper

          Blaming a tool is just silly.  Lots of people own guns and don't slaughter children.

          We don't know all the facts of this shooting, but based on recent shootings, especially the VA Tech shooting, it seems that a certain subset of mentally ill people should not have access to guns.  Moreover, this subset of mentall ill people are easy to identify.  In every recent shooting, IIRC, at least one person who knew the shooter believed he needed medical attention, STAT.  

          IMO, we at the least need not only more gun control, but better mental health care and screening.  One or the other isn't going to solve this problem.

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:42:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Or the fact that that lethal lethal tool (0+ / 0-)

          was in the hands of a (maybe) mentally ill person?
          Your logic doesn't work.

          Put the same tool in the hands of  a well balanced person and...you don't have 20 dead kids either.  So no blame for the tool?

          It is the intersection of the two.

          If you want something other than the obvious to happen; you've got to do something other than the obvious. Douglas Adams

          by trillian on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 01:59:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  But we do it all the time. (0+ / 0-)

        Is every soldier insane?

    •  It all goes back to guns; mentally ill or not (0+ / 0-)

      (we certainly don't know yet for sure about Lanzas' state of mind), but mentally ill people in Japan or the UK do not kill dozens of people every day - because they don't have the ridiculously easy access to guns that fire dozens of rounds in a few seconds.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:49:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for this diary. (12+ / 0-)

    It is a tregedy.  While you and I may disagree on some aspects of weapon regulations, I respect that you are responsible with your weapons, and recognize that many gun owners also are.  I have friends who are hunters who respect the danger that a weapon can create and keep them locked and unloaded when not being used for hunting.  

    His mothers' miscalculation (and perhaps understandable bindness ot her son's capacity for violence) played a role in her own death and that of the children.

    You and I may or may not disagree on whether assault weapons (or whatever the term is) should be available, but clearly any weapon should be kept away from unstable people.    

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:51:04 AM PST

  •  Because NRA Cultists (0+ / 0-)

    believe they need them--loaded--around and that they are good, not evil.

    We fear toner and tennis shoes on airplanes far more than we fear assault weapons, because of their high priced propeganda campaign.

  •  This is actually a related topic: (21+ / 0-)

    Recall the Florida law that makes it a criminal offense for a medical professional to ask whether there are guns in the house. This is exactly the type of situation where we (the public) need to give a mental health professional the ability to make sound recommendations based on a thorough safety check, and to inform the authorities if indicated. I have done this (by calling state police in another state) when I heard about guns being available to someone who was clearly a danger to themselves or others. In Florida, I not only could not do that, but would be risking jail by doing so. Thank you, NRA.

  •  75% of the NEWS that's (3+ / 8-)

    come out on this tragedy has been FALSE.

    First we thought the shooter was RYAN LANZA.

    THEN we thought Nancy Lanza worked at the school.

    Now, YOU're telling us something, so that we will all think guns aren't the problem.  Grasping at whatever straws will allow you to keep your precious man-toys.

    Gun-nuts love their guns more than they love their children.

    How's THAT for a fact?


    "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous..........got me?" - Don Van Vliet

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:56:01 AM PST

  •  here is the refutation of the story (16+ / 0-)


    http://www.lohud.com/...

    "Fox News also cited a senior law enforcement source confirming 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."

    HEARSAY.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:56:04 AM PST

  •  Some talk that this story is unfounded. Fox (9+ / 0-)

    broke the story yesterday, but the father of the source stated that his son didn't know what he was talking about.

    I think, either way, it's safe to say that however the guns were stored, they were not stored carefully enough.

    “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

    by jeff in nyc on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:57:26 AM PST

    •  jeff in nyc: given that thieves get guns (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy

      and bigger weapons -- think RPGs / LAWs from police and military arsenals, are you suggesting that there is no way to store weapons carefully enough???

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

      by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:13:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have no idea what you mean. I was just (0+ / 0-)

        saying that, evidently, this woman didn't store her guns safely enough, since her son got them and killed her and everybody else. It may be that there is no level of safety appropriate to a situation like she was in (if the son was literally this dangerous, then maybe there was no way to have a gun in that house.)

        We do not know what happened. I suspect, based on nothing whatsoever, that the guns and ammo were unsecured completely. I'm sure the police will let us know eventually.

        I do think there is no safe way for you as a private cititzen to store an RPG or a anti-tank missile. That criminals have sometimes stolen guns does not mean we shouldn't practice responsible gun ownership.

        Your comment is just a series of non sequitors and insinuation.

        “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

        by jeff in nyc on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:21:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We agree: some things are too hard to keep safe (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jeff in nyc, fuzzyguy

          at home.

          Hard part is figuring out whether inanimate objects that cannot of their own volition escape storage and kill people are more or less dangerous than people who would murder in order to possess them, take them elsewhere, and use them.

          I don't happen to take everything cops say as gospel, 'cause I used to be one. Cops are people too. They get scared; they misremember; they screw up. None of us likes to admit that, by the bye, whether we're cops or not. But there's a culture among cops that, over the last few years, has not-so-subtly shifted away from the friendly guy on the beat toward the body-armored SWAT troop kicking in the door....

          But I do know that sometimes determined people with bad intentions break into armories or hijack convoys carrying weapons belonging to the military, and/or the police (the police have a lot of hardcore weaponry nowadays, by the bye). I know that determined people with bad intentions are very difficult to stop.

          I don't know that Nancy Lanza didn't keep her firearms secured.
          I don't know whether or not she was afraid of her son.
          I do know it's damned interesting that he destroyed his computer, and I do know that the first victim of his rampage was in fact his mother.

          It's awful hard for me to blame a murder victim for other crimes her murderer committed after she was killed.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

          by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:22:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I had read elsewhere that (10+ / 0-)

    she was planning on sending him to a college program for special needs kids.

    There seems to be a lot of conflicting information.

    Bottom line, this Mom was over her head with this kid.  While her lack of responsibility is reprehensible, one has to ask where the hell the father was in all this.

    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

    by coquiero on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:59:00 AM PST

    •  Divorced, Not Living There. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, beltane, kestrel9000

      Not on the scene at least.

      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 Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:09:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So maybe divorce is part of the problem (0+ / 0-)

        Two heads are better than one, et cetera.

        Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

        by blue aardvark on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:13:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I knew they were divorced (0+ / 0-)

        I just wonder how much help he was providing the mom with a kid that was so troubled.

        No wonder this guy is keeping such a low profile right now.  I think he's waiting for some of the blame to come his way.

        I obviously don't know why they got divorced, but sometimes parents don't agree on treatment of troubled kids, so one just gives up and lets the other take control.  They seem to think that absolves themselves of responsibility.

        I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

        by coquiero on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:16:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He provided materially (3+ / 0-)

          The house, and substantial alimony - extraordinarily substantial given his reported income..

          In 2010, Nancy Lanza was to receive $240,000 for the year. In 2011, alimony increased to $265,000, followed by $289,800 in 2012. By 2015, the amount was to be $298,800. From 2016 to 2023, it was to be adjusted annually for cost of living, then it was to be modified after Peter Lanza retired.
          Peter Lanza agreed to pay for the children's college expenses, and he agreed to provide a car for Adam.
          In 2009, Nancy Lanza reported no income, while Peter Lanza reported $8,556 a week, or $444,912 gross annual income.
          http://www.denverpost.com/...

          "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

          by Catte Nappe on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:42:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  The father was involved, but... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kestrel9000

      Apparently under terms of the divorce, the father was to be consulted about decisions affecting Adam, but mom had the final say so.

      "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

      by Catte Nappe on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:45:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Have the terms of the divorce (0+ / 0-)

        been released to the public? That would seem unusual.

        •  At least some apparently (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BlackSheep1
          In 2010, Nancy Lanza was to receive $240,000 for the year. In 2011, alimony increased to $265,000, followed by $289,800 in 2012. By 2015, the amount was to be $298,800. From 2016 to 2023, it was to be adjusted annually for cost of living, then it was to be modified after Peter Lanza retired.

          Alimony would terminate in the case of the death of either party, court documents show.

          Any decisions about Adam's health, education and religious upbringing would be made by his mother, after consulting with his father. In the case of any disagreement, Nancy would make the final decision.
          http://www.denverpost.com/...

          "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

          by Catte Nappe on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:05:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Committed for how long? (4+ / 0-)

    Most inpatient mental health facilities are acute care, not chronic care. Although given that he was unstable, that might not have mattered to him.

    I remain a little sympathetic to the mother. Hind sight is 20-20; however, I can see how a parent could have difficulty believing their child was so unstable as to be capable of a violent crime.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:59:38 AM PST

  •  Drudge was blaring this story last night and (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kestrel9000, eXtina, Sandino, DRo

    this morning as the top story, citing to a Fox News interview with someone said to be a 25 year old Marine and son of a local pastor.  He said Lanza knew of the commitment proceedings and was furious.

    The article also gave a plausible reason for the attack on the school.  Supposedly Lanza's mother was a friend of the principal and had volunteered as a teacher's aide with kindergartners, although she was not a teacher.  Supposedly Lanza believed his mother loved those children more than him, and supposedly the kids he shot were the very kids his mother knew.

  •  I'm sorry, but this diary should be unreccomended (9+ / 0-)

    As of now, there is not a strong source for this.

    "Today is who you are" - my wife

    by I Lurked For Years on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:02:36 AM PST

    •  why is this being recc'ed? nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      megisi, DefendOurConstitution

      "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

      by eXtina on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:14:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is from Fox News 'Exclusive'-yech (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DRo

      “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."
      - Joshua Flashman, Newtown resident familiar with Lanza family
      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 bold is mine. So, Kestrel is not saying it is definitive,  but Fox is a ..gulp...major news source. This is still not confirmed.

      "Too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others" Robert F. Kennedy

      by realwischeese on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:15:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Probabilities (4+ / 0-)

    It doesn't do a lot of good to say "She should have ..." When given enough quantities it is bound to happen.

    The more weapons and ammo stored up here and there, the more likely it is unsecured.  It isn't rocket science, it's nature and statistics.

    Imagine if he only had a hunting rifle or 6 shooter instead of full on war weapons.

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:04:50 AM PST

  •  If it's on the internet it's true. I read that on (7+ / 0-)

    the internet.

    Romney is George W. Bush without brains.

    by thestructureguy on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:08:49 AM PST

  •  Legslation (3+ / 0-)

    especially gun legislation should always be formulated on a worst possible scenario basis. This is self evident in other countries but not in the US apparently.

  •  Even if this 'report' is true, how is this an (0+ / 0-)

    answer WHY? PLEASE EXPLAIN

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:21:39 AM PST

  •  kestrel9000, I have strong opinions re guns... (10+ / 0-)

    ...but for now will only say best of luck with your son.  That has to be hard for a parent to deal with, and I hope things turn out well.

    The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

    by TheOrchid on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:26:35 AM PST

  •  I've been wondering... (0+ / 0-)

    Had the mother not been murdered, would she have been charged with negligence?

    Money doesn't talk it swears.

    by Coss on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:29:39 AM PST

    •  Coss: if the mother weren't dead first, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy

      would the rest of the rampage have taken place?

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

      by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:16:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well I don't know how we could know that. (0+ / 0-)

        I know the kid who shot up the mall in Oregon stole a friend's gun (who he didn't also kill).

        I guess I'm wondering at what point gun owners are held liable for not securing their wmds.

        Money doesn't talk it swears.

        by Coss on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:59:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't see a firearm as a wmd, so I guess (0+ / 0-)

          I can't really come into the circle of your viewpoint.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

          by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 01:48:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

            You don't see an automatic machine gun as a wmd?

            I'm sure those children appreciate the difference.

            Money doesn't talk it swears.

            by Coss on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 02:06:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  automatic machine gun? (0+ / 0-)

              The information I have is that Lanza used a Bushmaster, a Sig Sauer and a Glock last Friday.

              Three separate firearms, none of which was an automatic machine gun.

              Weapons of mass destruction are a very different item.

              LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

              by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 03:09:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's a weapon that causes mass destuction (0+ / 0-)

                in a matter of seconds. Are we gonna split hairs here?

                I'm not going to pussyfoot around with this nonsense any longer. I want my government to ban my fellow citizens from owning tools that can cause mass destuction with minimal effort.

                And if (the royal) you own one of these weapons and someone uses it to kill, I want you prosecuted as well.

                Money doesn't talk it swears.

                by Coss on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 03:15:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not going to pussyfoot either. (0+ / 0-)

                  If you're really willing to equate a firearm with a nuclear bomb, I can't have a rational discussion with you on either subject.

                  LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                  by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 03:50:17 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Are you actually arguing (0+ / 0-)

                    that only nukes are WMD?

                    Do you know what mass destruction means? I don't even know what you're arguing. You seem to be of the ilk who just wants to sweep all this under the rug...until it actually impacts you then suddenly we're all supposed to jump.

                    Strawman arguments equating all fire arms aside, I guess I don't get your opposition to people possessing any weapon...including nukes.

                    Nukes don't kill people afterall.

                    Money doesn't talk it swears.

                    by Coss on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 05:46:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Please stop reporting gossip as fact (5+ / 0-)

    Even if you qualify it as "if true," it is highly misleading and gets people riled up over nothing.

    Just stop.

    And delete this irresponsible diary while you're at it.

    "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

    by SingularExistence on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:32:00 AM PST

  •  100% gov't subsidy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlackSheep1, fuzzyguy

    For purchase and delivery of gun safes.

    That won't totally solve the problem of guns falling into the wrong hands or being stolen and used in crime, but would be SOMETHING.

  •  Oh, it's totally believable. (3+ / 0-)

    Trust me on this. I know very little about guns/weaponry but I know a shitload about human behavior and mental illnesses, etc....

    Nobody believes that "it will happen to them". We all have thinking errors/blind spots especially when it comes to our children. Most of us need constant reminders and retraining to handle dangerous things or situations correctly. That's why police/safety/medical personnel have to go through recertifications and retrainings

    And the more guns people have, the increased likelihood of mistakes and underestimations of the risks just because of how we humans think.

    Lisa

    All Kossacks are my allies, but if you can't express your thoughts in a civil and kind manner, I won't be engaging in a conversation with you.

    by Boston to Salem on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:34:25 AM PST

  •  When I heard the initial erroneous story (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sponson, Anak, SilentBrook

    that his mother was a teacher at the school, that he shot her and her class, I did have a gut feeling it was some kind of expression that he maybe felt she cared more for them.

    As far as I know, the story where she told a friend she thought she was losing him rang true. And even if she hadn't started making plans to commit him, he may have picked up on a change in their relationship. Unfortunately, many people with children who have various impairments try to protect their children but also make them quite dependent. His mother seems to have been his whole life--his brother hadn't seen him in years. The extent of his social experiences seem to be the company of his mother, violent video games and "social" forays to the gun range.

    But then again, what the hell do I know?    

  •  The Mother's Emails To A Friend Have Surfaced..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mahakali overdrive

    She does talk about doing a lot of traveling....9 different countries.  Transition can be difficult for someone w/ Asperger's.  It's not unreasonable that Adam Lanza may have sensed a change.....a big change in his world.

    His mom also had MS & wanted to downsize to a smaller house.  Another change.  More anxiety?  

    •  what is source of your info? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Anak, jeff in nyc, SilentBrook

      where can one see these emails to a friend?

      mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

      by wewantthetruth on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:51:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  My son has Aspergers (5+ / 0-)

      and is quite adaptable to change as long as he is notified in advance. It is really not helpful to suggest that people with Aspergers go on murderous rampages or even non-murderous rampages every time there is change in their lives.

    •  FWIW, Aspergers is often misdiagnosed... (3+ / 0-)

      I worked with a child dx with Aspergers, but had violent rages that became progressively worse. Additionally,he started to show signs of psychosis...it was strange because it was so progressive.

      I referred him for a neurology work up. The brain scan showed lesions. Neurology referred the child for a genetic work up. which showed the child had a rare genetic condition that was causing the deterioration of  his brain. The child died within 6 months.

      Based on news reports, Adam Lanza had an inability to feel pain, which is related to a genetic disorder. I am inclined to think any pathology that contributed to this is related to something in the genetic realm. There appears to be too much organization in planning to attribute to "pure schizophrenia" or psychosis. I AM NOT DIAGNOSING here, just making observations.

      Common sense gun legislation and bringing back neurophysiology into counseling and social work programs can help give MH professionals the insight  needed to implement effective interventions and to know when to refer. Of course, the current state of the MH system, plus issues with 3rd party payers, blocks this approach in most cases.  The case I described above was grant funded, so getting that type of help was possible.

      Having guns in anyone's house entails a certain degree of risk. I am all for gun and ammo control legislation, since an all out ban is not feasible.

      There needs to be a look at the media as well as what 10+ years of war mentality and decades of ramping up the MIC have done to American culture.

      I told someone the solution to ending the violence is an overall in the way people think about others. There is a disturbing trend that some people in society are seen as disposable (homeless, minorities, the ill). This trend is not becoming generalized to broader segments of the population. We need to national mind shift to viewing each person as having intrinsic worth.

      Missing you dad. Still trying to change the world..one person at a time..one day at a time.

      by jadt65 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:28:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  People with guns kill people (5+ / 0-)

    All the time.  Take the guns away.

    -9.00, -5.85
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

    by Wintermute on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:00:06 AM PST

  •  Can a parent have a child over 18 committed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glorificus, OMwordTHRUdaFOG

    against his will? Does it vary from state to state? Just asking. We have a relative who was not able to put her 20-something son in a facility without his okay.

    stay together / learn the flowers / go light - Gary Snyder

    by Mother Mags on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:05:13 AM PST

    •  Yes, but it's not easy. Procedure varies from (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mother Mags, high uintas, trillian

      state to state. Basically, you have to establish IMMEDIATE  ( like right now, today, this minute) " danger to self or others". In most states, that'll get ya 72 hours, after which the involuntary commitment must be reviewed by a judge. If there's no reason to believe that there's an IMMEDIATE ( here, now) "danger to self or others", the patient will be allowed to sign themselves out.

      Really tough to establish IMMEDIATE " danger to self or others", until somebody actually starts shooting. Saying that you might do something tomorrow will not make the cut.

    •  In my experience, it is very difficult (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mother Mags, OMwordTHRUdaFOG

      not just on the legal end of the commitment (imminent risk of harm to self and others.), but also in getting funding for the hospitalization. All of the inpatient resources in my area have been privatized and it is 3 hours to a instate public hospital.  

      Missing you dad. Still trying to change the world..one person at a time..one day at a time.

      by jadt65 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:38:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If so, and not to be too blunt, then (3+ / 0-)

    she should have done a better job of locking up or getting rid of her guns.

    "To recognize error, to cut losses, to alter course, is the most repugnant option in government." Historian Barbara Tuchman

    by Publius2008 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:08:08 AM PST

  •  Do we KNOW that she was (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SilentBrook

    not taking precautions with her firearms?  I am asking because I have just seen people assume this -- and I frankly assumed it myself.  But do we KNOW she did not have them locked and/or hidden? From everything I have read, this kid was smart enough to find/break thru security measures she might have implemented. I would like to know the answer to this question and not just for the sake of her memory, but to start a discussion of just what safety measures would be needed to keep people safe from their own weapons.  

    I don't have guns, but I'm from the country where everyone has them.  I specifically recall 2 conversations about gun safety: one with a bro in law who had lots of hunting guns and two small children in his house about how a lock and key was not enough protection.  The other conversation was with my grandmother about my grandpa's decision to lock up and then completely remove his guns from the house after a member of the family grabbed one in a rage and threatened a member of the family with it.  

    Guns (any guns) are dangerous and require extraordinary measures to protect people from them.  What did this woman do (or not do) and how can we protect ourselves from our own guns?

  •  Not enough info out there yet (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SingularExistence

    It seems like the facts aren't being consistently reported and there's nothing but speculation as to the reason why this went down like it did.

    Hopefully investigators will able to piece together some sort of theory as to why he chose that school.

  •  Guns are the only consumer product (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, SilentBrook

    that manufacturers cannot, by law, be held criminally or financially liable in the event of injury or death.

    Some (please note the word "some' before jumping on me) handle and store their guns irresponsibly. gun owners should be held criminally and financially responsible for injuries and deaths caused by the weapons they owned, whether or not they themselves shot the victims unless gun had been reported stolen to the police.

    Gun owners should be certified and made to obtain liability insurance and if they cannot quality for insurance, they don't get to own a gun. you want to won a gun, you have to accept the responsibility.

    ban assault weapons. period.  have a buyback program like Australia had when they put an assault weapon bad in place and make it a criminal offense to own one with stiff penalties.

    ban extended magazines for all guns. period.

    no background check, no gun. period. no matter where the gun is purchased.

    if, a big if, online gun sales remain allowed, regulate how and what so all other regulations are followed regardless of where guns are bought.

    ban sales of guns between unlicensed individuals. you cannot sell a car without documenting the sale legally through title transfer, should be some similar mechanism for guns sold between individuals.  heavy penalties for non-compliance.

    implement the above and injuries and deaths due to gun violence would drop dramatically. better yet, not one of the the things noted above violates the 2nd Amendment.

    Do these things then we can work on mental health issues and video games, TV and movies.

    mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

    by wewantthetruth on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:20:05 AM PST

  •  Jaw Dropping Diary (0+ / 0-)

    We have no real facts on how visibly ill the shooter was. We don't know how the guns were stored. This is all hearsay at this point. However, you are certain that the mother was irresponsible according to your own "just trust me, my guns are like totally secure" standards.

    You have a mentally ill person coming to one of several houses with guns and you want to get into a pissing match over whose guns are "just trust me guys" the most securely stored. You want to know how this shit goes down? Go take a long hard look in the mirror. Hubris, plain and simple.

  •  Hopefully this part of the puzzle (0+ / 0-)

    will strengthen the mental health components of our pending legislation, both Obama care & Gun controls

    Kenyan Socialism today Kenyan Socialism tomorrow Kenyan Socialism forever May his reign last 1,000 years

    by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:43:19 AM PST

  •  Alternate version (0+ / 0-)
    No details have emerged about whether Adam Lanza enrolled at another school or worked somewhere after leaving Western Connecticut State. But his mother recently had been considering moving him to Washington state, said Mark Tambascio, a restaurant proprietor and close family friend, because she had discovered a school she thought would be good for him.

    “They were going to move out there together,” Tambascio, who had known Nancy Lanza for several years, said Sunday night.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

    by Catte Nappe on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:46:52 AM PST

  •  kestrel please accept another point of view (4+ / 0-)

    earned from experience. My son does not appear to have been as impaired as yours from what you have said but he has a developmental disorder and had severe emotional and social components while he was in high school. His mother also has had a depressive disorder for a very longtime. Their mental health professionals begged me to remove the few weapons I had not sold. My wife asked me to sell them too. We went back and forth for quite some time. I resisted strongly while insisting there was no way either could gain access to any of them. I took very strong security measures that I was, am, sure could not be breached. That they never were compromised does not justify my choices.

    A huge amount of hard work and lots of money, not all that important, later they both are doing well. Both are safe. The  guns are also not in my home and have not been here for several years. I removed them during a very bad time when my wife dove down the rabbit hole the last time. She was suicidal and had breached one level of my security. That was enough to convince me to remove the guns immediately. They are with a good friend quite a distance from me who has similar security that neither my wife or son will ever be able to try to get near much less past.

    This was a very scary time. The only valid threat was the existence of weapons. They should not have even been a possible danger. It was only my refusal to align my thinking with reality that they could have been a threat. Trust me. Save yourself the possibility of a similar or worse experience by removing your guns from your home.

    Just last night my wife and I watched Dr. Phil meeting with a couple of Newtown families. Afterward she said to me that she thought that I should have gotten rid of my guns when asked to do so. Only then did I tell her that I had given them to our friend so long ago for safe keeping. She was surprised and pleased. I don't deserve any praise. Removing them was the only right choice but I couldn't make it until after they were a problem. Please don't put yourself in that position. Your son deserves better.

    Time makes more converts than reason. Thomas Paine, Common Sense

    by VTCC73 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:50:12 AM PST

  •  you have to remember (0+ / 0-)

    that she was insane too. Maybe not certifiable, commitable insane, but crazy as a fucking loon insane.

    She believed the future would bring a total breakdown of society, something on the order of Mad Max and other movies of that genre. Reality is, she probably just saw too many movies of that genre and started to believe them. Insane.

    And yes, if any of you out there are building underground shelters for the same eventuality, you're fucking insane too.

    •  More unfounded rumors reported here as "fact" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, mahakali overdrive

      The "survivalist" rumors that people have been spouting off about have been debunked as well.

      Honestly, people. Does no one know how to ready critically anymore?

      "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

      by SingularExistence on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:57:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, we don't "have to remember" that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive

      Because that is rumor, not fact. So far, evidence actually favors the likelihood that she was NOT a sruvivalist than that she was.

      "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

      by Catte Nappe on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:13:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh well that settles it. (0+ / 0-)

    That also explains all of the other massacres that have happened in recent years.   Thanks for clearing that up, I guess we can go back to watching American Gladiators now.  

    When the going gets rough, the average go conservative. --Henry Rollins

    by Beelzebud on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:07:42 AM PST

  •  Lots of false information from unnamed... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution, DRo

    law enforcement officials.  This case seems worse than most for misinformation.  I am taking all the analysis with a grain of salt.

    A new birth of freedom..

    by docterry on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:07:55 AM PST

  •  How is this diary different from a CT diary? n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beelzebud
  •  Fox News and Drudge Report: Giving gun nu-- (0+ / 0-)

    --Oops I mean 2nd Amendment Rights Activists the cover they need in trying times.  

    When the going gets rough, the average go conservative. --Henry Rollins

    by Beelzebud on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:41:17 AM PST

    •  Actually it seems that it might work against (0+ / 0-)

      the NRA.  After all, if guns don't kill people, mentally ill people do, then how do they propose we keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill?  Because no background checks at guns shows ain't gonna do it.

      If you want something other than the obvious to happen; you've got to do something other than the obvious. Douglas Adams

      by trillian on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 02:17:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  maybe... just maybe Holly Near has the answer (0+ / 0-)

    "You've got to be an optimist to be a Democrat, and a humorist to stay one" - Will Rogers

    by KnotIookin on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:44:00 AM PST

    •  Maybe she does (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KnotIookin

      Or more likely the writer of the song does. For the benefit of those who cannot view/hear videos - here are the lyrics.

      Maybe it's the movies, maybe it's the books
       Maybe it's the bullets, maybe it's the real crooks
       Maybe it's the drugs, maybe it's the parents
       Maybe it's the colors everybody's wearin
       Maybe it's the President, maybe it's the last one
       Maybe it's the one before that, what he done
       Maybe it's the high schools, maybe it's the teachers
       Maybe it's the tattooed children in the bleachers
       Maybe it's the Bible, maybe it's the lack
       Maybe it's the music, maybe it's the crack
       Maybe it's the hairdos, maybe it's the TV
       Maybe it's the cigarettes, maybe it's the family
       Maybe it's the fast food, maybe it's the news
       Maybe it's divorce, maybe it's abuse
       Maybe it's the lawyers, maybe it's the prisons
       Maybe it's the Senators, maybe it's the system
       Maybe it's the fathers, maybe it's the sons
       Maybe it's the sisters, maybe it's the moms
       Maybe it's the radio, maybe it's road rage
       Maybe El Nino, or UV rays
       Maybe it's the army, maybe it's the liquor
       Maybe it's the papers, maybe the militia
       Maybe it's the athletes, maybe it's the ads
       Maybe it's the sports fans, maybe it's a fad
       Maybe it's the magazines, maybe it's the internet
       Maybe it's the lottery, maybe it's the immigrants
       Maybe it's taxes, big business
       Maybe it's the KKK and the skinheads
       Maybe it's the communists, maybe it's the Catholics
       Maybe it's the hippies, maybe it's the addicts
       Maybe it's the art, maybe it's the sex
       Maybe it's the homeless, maybe it's the banks
       Maybe it's the clearcut, maybe it's the ozone
       Maybe it's the chemicals, maybe it's the car phones
       Maybe it's the fertilizer, maybe it's the nose rings
       Maybe it's the end, but I know one thing.
       If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns.

      "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

      by Catte Nappe on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:08:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  From my experience (0+ / 0-)

    Kids that are over 10 are very good at breaking into anything their parents have locked up. They don't always leave a trace that they have done it. Humans are very smart.

    So, if you think you have it locked up so your son can't get to it, you may be fooling yourself. The only option that will work is to have the guns off premises, in another place entirely that your son can't go to.

    Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

    by splashy on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:52:59 AM PST

  •  She made a mistake (3+ / 0-)

    That's why the guns were where he could get to them.

    She made a mistake and paid for it with her life.

    Whether or not she was having him committed, that's the way it is.

    There is no more punishment that can be given to Nancy Lanza.

    I've seen reports that cast doubt on the "prepper" or "survivalist" meme. People who knew her well have said she was simply a gun enthusiast -- i.e., hobbyist. She talked about prepping with a relative once.

    I've had enough gun hobbyists for friends over the years to not condemn anyone on the basis of that alone.

    I think her hobby was a very bad one, but who am I to sit in judgment?

    If she was committing him, good on her. That's clearly what he needed. But don't condemn her because she didn't fear he was going to go to her gun locker and take a gun and shoot her four times in the head.

    He was her son. She was his mother. If every mother who didn't see the worst bits of her child was condemned, we would have any mothers left.

    He was with her every day. For 20 years, she went to bed and woke up the next morning without him committing an act of violence against her (as far as we know).

    It's entirely reasonable that she knew he was far enough off the rails to need to go into a residential facility, but didn't realize he was capable of what he did.

    Nancy Lanza's mistake allowed a lot of other people to be harmed. But it was a mistake. She's paid.

    Let her rest in peace.

    Wealth doesn't trickle down -- it rises up.

    by elsaf on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:02:17 PM PST

  •  Nice fig leaf trying to distract from the cause (0+ / 0-)

    of the carnage - the firearms.  Without those even a mentally ill person may hurt others, but not kill so many so fast.

    Mental health is extremely important and must be addressed, but it seems that your diary's only goal is to distract from the one variable that can be controlled in this whole situation - the easy access to lethal firearms that shoot way more bullets per second than any sportsman or hunter would ever need.  How can we address the cause and seek answers without addressing the root cause?

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:05:17 PM PST

  •  Man, I couldn't agree more (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fuzzyguy, OMwordTHRUdaFOG

    Although I think Nancy Lanza was desensitized to her son's issues. She'd been dealing with him for a long time on her own. I think she may have not known he was dangerous. But yes, from what I'd read, she knew he was not well and this was far beyond Asperger's, presumably. But only presumably.

    I also think she ought not have had guns in her home although I'm curious to hear how they were secured since Adam tried to buy some a few days before, they must have been relatively secured. Just not enough. And he did shoot her while she was asleep in bed. So my presumption is they were locked up but when asleep, he stole the keys?

    Still not an acceptable situation at all.

    Tipped and rec'd.

    However, I would like to avoid villainizing her. I think she made an error in judgement that MANY people make, not realizing how volatile situations are, especially if they love someone involved with these situations.

    Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

    by mahakali overdrive on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:33:56 PM PST

    •  Why avoid holding her accountable? (0+ / 0-)

      You are absolutely right that too many people in these situations are in absolute denial about how volatile situation are or how unstable a loved one is.  "It's just a phase" "He'll grow out of it" "You just don't understand what he is going through."  

      Sometimes the denial is as much about them as the person needing help.  They don't want to admit that their child may have a significant mental illness.  That just won't do in their social circle or doesn't fit their image of themself.

      I've had loved ones in such denial.  And yes, it ended with someone getting shot.  Proximity to a level one trauma center keep it from being murder.

      Don't excuse or enable the denialists.  That's part of the problem too.  

      If you want something other than the obvious to happen; you've got to do something other than the obvious. Douglas Adams

      by trillian on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 02:27:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't care about the WHY. I care about the HOW. (0+ / 0-)

    And the HOW is that semi-automatic handguns and a combat weapon semi-automatic rifle were used. That's all that matters in this case.

    Semi-automatic handguns and rifles need to be banned.

    Single action guns should be fine enough to satisfy some twisted interpretation of a right to raise militias. If you can't hunt, or shoot what you're trying shoot, with a single action gun then maybe you shouldn't be in possession of one in the first place.

  •  I wish people knew more about the RKBA before (3+ / 0-)

    they started commenting.

    "Well regulated", as in militia, meant "well armed and trained" in the language of the day.  Read the Heller opinion for a good understanding of the history of the RKBA.  Link, here:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/....

    There is a reason that the Founders put a clause in the Constitution that would allow for a well armed citizenry.  Think about that.  Why would they do that?   It's because, in England, the Crown tried to disarm the citizenry so that it could never rise up and the Founders wanted to be sure that could never happen here.  

    Thus, based upon historical precedent, there is a logical reason why the average citizen should be at least as well armed as the average soldier. That's where the Supreme Court will have to make the call if an assault weapons ban passes.   How well armed should the citizenry be before the government has the right to draw the line?   History says at "dangerous and unusual weapons", not what the average grunt carries in combat.  

    Like it or not, that's where the bright line will have to get drawn.   For the record, I am a gun owner and I wholly support longer waiting periods, full background checks and registration/licensing for any firearm and closing the gun show loophole.

    Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause. - Gandhi

    by SpamNunn on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 01:55:38 PM PST

  •  I wish there was one easy answer... (0+ / 0-)

    but there's just not.  Otherwise Aurora wouldn't have happened, AZ, Columbine.  None of those folks were on the verge of being committed.

    Also the veracity of that report is in question.

    20 innocent children were slaughtered. The gun lobby and NRA bear responsibility and it is time to fight back! http://www.csgv.org/index.php

    by the dogs sockpuppet on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 02:09:23 PM PST

  •  Flashman off the record here... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil

    although he does say he's heard it second-hand and that the reporter, who asked him because he was in uniform and walking through Newtown, was essentially negligent to run with it. His aunt is upset with him that this could shame the family if it is just hearsay, to which he says, he made it clear that it was hearsay and also he believes his source. He also says that there's no tension between he and his father in regard to the remarks.

    Here are a few unpublished remarks of his that are not in the news. I won't link to these because it would be improper to do so. I'm not sure if he's aware that his "mic" is on, so to speak...

    Still, it's not private information, so here we go...

    Each of these is in response to a link of this story, all different links:

    Really? My Dad refuted my story? I didn't know that! I thought he told the media that I was just relaying what I was told in town by people that knew the Lanza's better than I did, and it should be treated as such.
    Lol he was laughing his ass off when we read this article together last night. These media clowns are so full of it.
    The NY Daily News forgot to mention that my dad said he believed I thought my source and information to be completely credible. Must've slipped their mind not to include that part. How about some journalistic integrity.
    So here he says, while he heard it second-hand, he does feel his source was credible. I think his source could have been the owner of My Place, the tavern Nancy hung around, because he went on record in the WaPo and said she was thinking of moving to Washington. They appear to have been close friends.
    Hahahahhahhahahahahaha so now I ran to the media, huh Gloria? The cops already knew this story, it's been floating around town for days. I was APPROACH becausw i was in uniform on a back road about a mile from Newtown high as I was leaving the prayer vigil Sunday night. She asked what I thought Adam's motive was, and I told he what I had heard, making sure to explain that it was second hand info. The reporter then spent 2 days trying to convince me to go on the record so hat she had a name to put with the local explanation that she was already hearing. The cops knew this story well before I did, and I didn't run to anyone with anything.
    Not sure who Gloria is, sorry.
    Lol u crack me up, Fredric. My dad is a HUGE Fox News fan. Watches Fox & Friends every morning, and O'Reilly, Hannity, and Van Susteran every night.
    Also, I don't know who Fredric is.

    So there you go. Flashman's take on the media in his own words.

    Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

    by mahakali overdrive on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 02:11:59 PM PST

  •  Who cares about why? Fact is, she was (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy

    irresponsible, the kid got guns and killed 26 people and wounded two more.

    Who CARES why?

    The burden of safety was on the owner who F A I L E D.

    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

    by cany on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:51:55 PM PST

  •  I love you 9000 and trust what you say. (0+ / 0-)

    You gotta remember I was coming off a very unpleasant FB exchange with my SIL.  Who I respect in every other area except his crazy wing nut ideas.

    Sign my White House Petition [Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment http://wh.gov/n8Qj]

    by 88kathy on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:18:33 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site