Guy definitely needed help, but I think people need to refocus their blame on American culture as the result of these tragedies rather than the weapon used in them. The gun was the medium through which the intent was carried out. We need to take a look in the mirror and ask what has happened to our society? How was this intent developed? Do you ever talk to your neighbor? How are relations with your families, kids? We can ban guns, and maybe it will improve some things, but if the intent is still there, then there will still be problems.

I also think the promotion of violence in every facet, whether movies, video games, TV, news media encouraging wars is leading to a more militaristic and offensive environment.

I disagree with banning guns, not for personal protection, but for protection against the tyranny of government as stated by many people who founded this country. Let's face facts, America was founded with guns.

Let's take a look at some of the quotes:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress) - George Washington

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

"Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised...to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia..." - George Mason

That is the greatest concern for me, not personal protection. If the government ever turns on the people, which history has shown and history always repeats itself, how are the people going to defend themselves? With a ban of guns, the US will most likely lose the last remnants of its national sovereignty and fall into the hands of a world government.

If what we read is true, this is indeed a tragic story. A mother seemingly devoted to her emotionally distressed son (sleeping outside his door when he was sick because he didn't want to let her in) and she likely gave in to his demands which perhaps included wanting to take up target shooting. When a parent has an emotionally challenged child they cut them a lot of slack in this case obviously too much. She should have directed him towards more placid activities like sailing as a poster indicated. It is still to be learned why she had an assault rifle and numerous handguns. Seems like protection overkill. I recall mention of a shotgun as well. Perhaps it will never be known until someone like Truman Capote fully research's this event like "In cold blood" that we will ever know what the relationship was really like.

This article has nothing to do with banning guns. It described some odd behaviour in the shooter that could have either been a warning of what was to come or totally irrelevant. Even more important than the issue of gun control is the issue of people control.

Will we someday use this behaviour in a profile that will help us prevent future occurrences? How would we do that? Can we identify people who are prone to such heinous violence? Would we revoke rights to bear arms or guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure, or self-incrimination just because someone who has never broken the law "acts odd"? By whose standard is behaviour deemed odd?

By either action or inaction, these questions have more dire consequence on the fate of our society then issues of assault rifles vs semi-automatics and 10, 20, or 30 round mags.

Nice work on the Alimony Nancy! Bet you wish you could have taken better care of your son. Why would any Son shoot a loving and attentive mother? Something ain't right here... or there.

Irresponsible gun owners are the people who permit these types of murders. They were quick to buy guns when Obama was elected, but unwilling to buy a gun safe to put them in or gun locks to secure them. Instead they put their gun under a pillow or mattress where a child or crazy family member could take it to school or work.

Some gun owners want to blame the media, schools, government or the lack of religion. However, these guns are not being stolen from gun shops. The truth is that the NRA and its members are providing the guns that are used to kill them and the rest of us.

Sandman, your "George Washington" quote is bogus, as is your first "Jefferson" quote.

Just more proof that your sources lie to you and manipulate you.

Why else would you be armed with bogus quotes to bolster your argument?

I consider myself a left-leaning liberal democrat, and I think you all make a mistake by assailing gun ownership rights.... The first thing a tyrannical government does, is to take away the rights of a citizen to defend themselves. The problem isnt with the guns, its within the culture. A morally bankrupt culture with fractured families.

Gun control laws won't stop this, but it sure will make it near impossible to defend ourselves if a future iteration of our government decides to roll out the tanks and the jack-booted thugs against us. Here in the USA?? Preposterous! you say. No, its not... Hopefully, not likely, but not impossible... History is full of good governments gone batsh!t crazy.

Finding a way to minimize this kind of psychological breakdown that Adam experienced and to express disgust of any glorification of "gun culture" will do much more.. A fellow wants an assault rifle? Fine. Go get one, lock it up, shut up about it, dont brag about it, any more than you do about a hammer purchase. End of story. Its this bizarre gun culture (collecting functioning modern guns) nonsense that needs to stop. As for Adam, a mom who didn't teach an emotionally blunted young man to shoot might have been a good start... Some common sense is needed. There was a time when moms admonished us that we might put our "eye out with that thing!" Now we have this mother, encouraging her kid to handle things those old fashioned moms would have never let us handle, until we signed up for Active Duty!

I would also like to remind you all of the 1920s Bath School Disaster (still the worst mass killing of elementary school chidren to date). Look it up... that did not occur with guns....

Im onboard with you, Iwonder - its much more complex than "my neighbor has a gun" - Actually, I kinda hope he does... He's a good guy, and I want him to be able to protect himself against any jerks if he needs to.

Nope, this is a cultural thing, AND a health-epidemic thing. We have kids that are totally skrewed up - THATS the problem. When moms started leaving thier kids everywhere but under thier close supervision, to go off for that second income (The MARKET strikes again) was part of the problem. The second part of this mess is this striking rise in autism - one of the primary features of which, is emotional blunting and/or social maladaptation. People are scratching thier heads about this striking rise in autism. Is it just that there are more diagnoses where once the person would have been under some other diagnosis? Is it organic? Is it environmental? Let me tell you something - Its environmental. Its upbringing. Too many of these kids are not receiving the critical interactions necessary at the earliest ages, in way too many cases.

The MARKET doesnt want to hear this. The MARKET demands that wages be lower and lower, and that mom leave for the workforce, the welfare of little Johnny be damd. Heck, if the MARKET had it's way, it would have little Johnny back on the factory floor working for pennies, or even nothing, if it could figure out how to get back there again.

The big problem isnt gun control- its basic societal changes to our family structure, and the role of the mother. It is the welfare of our children on the line here. Theres your common denominator in almost all of these casese. I think that our society is bending over backwards to NOT see that other elephant in the room - and that is the issue of how critical an emotionally and physically available mom really is to raising well adjusted children. Spiralling cases of "autism" Since the early 1980s a coincidence..? I think not.

Here's a link so everyone can see what kind of guns killed these children. These were assault weapons, not guns for hunting animals, but guns for shooting people. Some say the semi-automatic handguns killed the victims, but last I read, the coroner said they were all killed by the assault rifle. Does it make any difference which weapon of war killed them?

Today is a day to mourn for these precious children and their teachers and today is the day to speak up, Americans, and tell the NRA that we will not let them or their supporters bully us anymore.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/15/inside-sandy-hook-elementary-school/1772307/

BAN ALL AUTOMATIC AND SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

There it is, the paranoia of the right. Besides missing the fact that the British empire (which is where many of our ideals came from) has stood for many years (I would argue you could easily date it to the introduction of the Magna Carta in 1216 and no later than the last of the English civil wars in 1651), the right still has this irrational fear that the 'gub'mint' is going to enslave them.

What does the stability of the British Empire have to do with anything? He was simply talking about government subjugating the masses. And well gee, I guess that never happens at all, right? Go back and read some history and tell us all what it took to finally empower the lower classes. Hint, it had something to do with killing the ruling class. You think that's not possible again? It's still happening all over the world...as we speak. Why you think it can't happen in the US.

And nobody is talking about banning all guns, just the ones that would allow you to massacre 20 or 30 of your fellow citizens in under one minute.

Give me 4 revolvers from 1900 and I could kill 20 people in under a minute. There was nothing particularly special about the gun he used. It is not a fully automatic military weapon. It's just a semi-automatic rifle, and he could have caused the same amount of damage with a semi-automatic hunting rifle or those handguns he was carrying. About the best you can pull off legislation wise is to limit the size of the magazines that are sold to civilians. I don't have a problem with that. But banning assault weapons? Nobody can even define what an assault weapon is. It's just a marketing term for a gun with a military appearance. Their insides are exactly the same as hunting rifles.

I would not say he was devoid of all feelings...and a sociopath is something entirely different. Yes he had problems, yes what he did was terrible, but even people with feelings do terrible, terrible things.

Ok deprogrammer and strengthinnumbers, you guys are thinking! Don't often find that in americans. The way you fix something is, first, find out what is wrong with it, then figure out how to correct it. I doubt that it is as simple as deprogrammer thinks because I think that I am somewhat crazy, a conservative, had a gun for most of my life and have never taken a shot at anyone. You may be on the right track, keep refining it and you might solve it.

From the article, it sounds like he was an antisocial skull-faced kook who lived with his gun-obsessed mom watching fox news and ranting on about free market this and that, when he wasn't spending quality time with mom at the shooting range, that is. What a surprise he did what he did.

Sandman, I'll stipulate that there could be a place for a right to own an assault weapon or two to preserve your rights against the tyranny of your own government. Can you agree, though, that government has a role in restriction of individual liberties for the purpose of allowing many hundreds of thousands of us to come into contact with one another daily, exercising our individual rights, in such as way as to prevent conflict? For example, if I'm leaving Boston, headed for the country after work on a summer Friday, should I be allowed to just cross over to the inbound lanes on the expressway and drive the wrong way because there's only a trickle of traffic inbound at that time?

How about this: Since a general armed insurrection to resist a tyrannical government is a rare happening here, occurring only about once every 120 years or so, let's have a law that you can own assault weapons against the day when the next one will come, provided you keep them on your own property or tenancy, secured against theft or access by mental defectives until that legitimate need presents itself. For personal defense outside the home, however, you can carry a nice revolver, or a shotgun on the gun rack of your pick-up, but no semi-automatics and only five rounds of ammunition, so when some punk jacked up from playing Halo 4 all day, loaded with Monster and dressed all in black whacks you on the head and decides to shoot up an elementary school, the number of deaths will at least be more manageable.

You'd also want to consider very, very carefully what your neighbors are doing in the case of one of these revolutions/civil war situations. If 80% of your town wants to take their Bushmasters out to the freeway and start shooting up the passing federal convoys, that's a "revolution," but if it's just you, ticked off over your refuse bill increase, expect it to be treated like an actual crime, with jail, a trial, and then a prison term.

I need an AK 47 with a 30 round magazine to defend myself in case someone breaks into my house.

BG, The flaw with your argument is that these people don't have AK47s. They have semi-automatic guns that look like the military versions.

How about this: Since a general armed insurrection to resist a tyrannical government is a rare happening here, occurring only about once every 120 years or so, let's have a law that you can own assault weapons against the day when the next one will come, provided you keep them on your own property or tenancy, secured against theft or access by mental defectives until that legitimate need presents itself. For personal defense outside the home, however, you can carry a nice revolver, or a shotgun on the gun rack of your pick-up, but no semi-automatics and only five rounds of ammunition, so when some punk jacked up from playing Halo 4 all day, loaded with Monster and dressed all in black whacks you on the head and decides to shoot up an elementary school, the number of deaths will at least be more manageable.

So, if you have your arsenal locked up, and you're not allowed to take it out unless there's a revolution...what's to stop you from taking it out if you suddenly go crazy?

A bunch of white slave owners said so 236 years ago

So, they're "white slave owners" when we're talking about guns, but they're the founding fathers when we're talking freedom of religion, and press, and assembly, etc.

You morons and your dreams/fears of 'revolution'. Have any of you actually thought it through? What would really happen if you emptied out your gun safe and started shooting up government property and personnel?

In 1787, the only major difference between the citizens and the standing army was some artillery pieces. Personal firearms between the soldier and citizen were the same; flintlock pistols and rifles. If enough citizens rose up, the artillery won't be a huge factor to overcome.

Today? If you can't drum up enough support from the professional military in the Army and Air Force, you'll be nothing more than live targets. And if you do get that support, do you think your gun collection is going to make a big difference? Modern wars are won with air support and armored vehicles, for recent examples look to Libya or Syria. Four guys armed with AR-15s in a SUV will be a threat right up until a drone sees them at which point they'll become a crater. So quit feeding each others paranoia and stop watching 'Rambo' or 'Red Dawn' and join the real world. If it's truly a popular revolution the professional military will decide it and they might let you help. If it's a bunch of malcontents that have minority views, you'll likely end up in an unmarked grave.

@ and the horse #1.3

Times have changed since the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, sandman. If that kid had been at any given battle in the revolutionary war, he could have taken out the entire British Army single handed with that AR-15. Muskets were THE "arms" which the 2nd amendment meant to be borne. I have no problem granting you the right to bear muskets. Military weapons are for the military.

Yep time sure have changed, do you think the Founding Fathers meant the first amendment to protect the Porn Industry? Hollywood? and the filth they put forth as Art? Or is is just for the Printing Press, the Podium and the Pulpit?

Or do we get to regulate the propaganda that is put forth as news from places like MSNBC, NBC, CBS ABC, CNN, Huffington Post, or even FOX, etc

And it really doesn't matter what YOU believe...SCOTUS Keller v DC, and Chicago Lawsuit. So if they say the ACA is Constitutional then so are "Arms".

I'm a Mental Health Professional. This shooter did not have anti-social personality disorder. His history does not support this diagnosis. He most likely had a form of autism that went untreated and not monitored. This is all our fault for not allowing the public to have cofidential 24/7 access to crisis intervention specialists who will actual go to a location to resolve the crisis. Police do not have the edjucation to assess and provide such emergency services.

Up to 34 Palestinian Children Killed in Gaza; U.N. Warns of "Deep Trauma"'
DemocracyNOW

APOCALYPSE NOW ~ CALL OF DUTY ~ STOCK MARKET TRESPASSERS

LATimes ~ Wlasuk said he sometimes went to the Lanza house with his father, a plumber, who told him of the room in the basement where Lanza spent a lot of time playing video games. As Wlasuk's father described it, the room had posters of military weaponry, and Lanza would be playing violent video games such as "Call of Duty."

Bengali and Hennessy-Fiske reported from Newtown, Conn., and Murphy from Seattle

CALL OF DUTY >>>>>>>>>>>>>

It has always been apparent, that people kill people, even in violent video
games.

Last session, the Stock Market, seeking forgiveness for its trespasses
punished Cabela's stores (CAB), suppliers of tents and other family related
outdoors equipment. One might think that Cabela's customers were walking out of
their stores with bundles of automatic weapons, but that is a far cry from the
truth.

The real culprits in Newtown, CT, are people slaughtering video games, and
parents who wrap them as Christmas gifts for their children.

WALL STREET: Please make a note of this. 'Call of Duty'

So, if you have your arsenal locked up, and you're not allowed to take it out unless there's a revolution...what's to stop you from taking it out if you suddenly go crazy?

This new, improved mental health component of the Affordable Care Act that we're all going to be willing to pay increased taxes or increased insurance premiums to fund, that's what. Look, I'm trying to craft a deal that will get 99.44% of the auto-loaders and mounds of .223 and 9mm ammo that's loose in this country locked up where the Adam Lanzas of the world can't get at it. I think it's an approach with more chance of success in preventing massacres than banning the private ownership of all rimless cartridges or trying to declare "assault weapon" ownership illegal.

There are two separate problems here: 1) What can be prevented from coming into being by banning manufacture and sale, but 2) The hundreds of millions of existing guns and the TRILLIONS of rounds of ammunition that are already in private hoards all over this country.

To the rational people in the room, I know that the right thing to do is to fight for what you believe. But how can you argue or have a reasonable debate with those who will not listen to reason. These people are only responding in an emotional knee jerk mentality, they lack the ability to think critically. For Example:

A common thread here is that many of these shootings happen in gun free zones. (guaranteed no one can shoot back)

I am trying to think of a time when there was a massacre at a gun show or a shooting range.(if more guns equal more crime, why there not more killings at places where there are guns)(to be honest, I am trying to find a single event, but they are extremely rare)

Unfortunately, our courts have determined that mentally ill individuals have the right to refuse treatment (an unintended consequence of liberal legislation following the movie One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest).

Up until 1934, any one in the US could order and have shipped through the USPS, a fully automatic sub-machine(Tommy Gun) or even a BAR(both were heavily used during WWII). Where were all the spree shootings then(other than criminal gangland)? It was not uncommon to walk into a hardware store and buy a case of dynamite to remove tree stumps. If easy access to deadly weapons is the measure of a deadly society, why were things like the "Bath School Disaster" not regular occurrences?

NO, the only thing that has changed in the last 50 or so years is the Secular Progressive agenda has wove its tentacles into society. Family is irrelevant. Dads are irrelevant. Males, especially white males, are irrelevant or even 'need' to be marginalized. Morals and Personal Responsibility are irrelevant. History is irrelevant.

My point is, since the 60's and the Progressive march toward hedonism in this country, with the rise of the welfare state, and easy divorce, discipline in this country is gone. No longer are men being raised by fathers. And how do you become a real man, if you don't have one to show you the way? Granted it isn't always successful, but it is more successful than the alternative.

As far back as the Whiskey Rebellion, the government has used Federal Militia, later the National Guard to "restore" order. And as recently as the '70's, there have been several clashes between the National Guard and civilians, especially during labor disputes, but other protests as well, witness Kent State and Mississippi. It is definitely not unheard of for the Government to use military forces to impose its will upon the populace. Thus far, it has been, relatively supported by the majority, but what about the day it isn't?

The liberals always seem to be claiming the "Rich Elite" and "Corporate America" are manipulating the government. Well, who is going to oppose them when they take over? And for those of you who say "Four guys armed with AR-15s in a SUV will be a threat right up until a drone sees them at which point they'll become a crater." Well there are about 50 million gun owners, and now doubt a large number of them are veterans. There are about 1.5 million active duty in the USDOD, and I would hope that at least a 1/3 would defect and commandeer some equipment on the way out. It would be a difficult task no doubt, but I have no doubt who'd win.

But hey, your not going to rock the boat now are you? Things are going your way right? Obama is in the White House, and the ACA is the law of the land. You are doing exactly what they want.

So, how about you liberals accept responsibility for your role in this massacre? the Blood is on your hands, as so many of you are fond of shouting at the NRA.

Seems to me the 'tipping point' for an armed revolution in this country, and many other First World nations is long since passed. Any fantasy about defeating our military with civilian weapons is just that.

We can, however, 'oppose them' at the ballot box before they can take over. This was very recently demonstrated in our national election. In spite of the vapid attempts by billionaires and lobbyists to subvert voting rights and use the media to broadcast the most transparent falsehoods, they were defeated at the polls. One party used money and deceit as a campaign strategy, the other used grassroots participation. The latter prevailed.

This farcical portrayal of 'liberals' simply provides the impetus for an even greater divide in our country. Those screaming the loudest are those that either have no idea what 'liberal' means, or simply contrive a nonsensical meaning to further their agenda. They fool no one but the choir.

I'm a liberal - receptive to change. There is no stasis in this universe, and adopting a philosophy contrary to that reality seems foolish, at best.

Perhaps the liberal policies on gun possession and use have played a factor in our social disintegration. "The blood is on your hands"? Clearly, there has been sufficient blood spilled to stain all our hands, including those of us organizing fantasy patriotic resistance militias.

So much effort in finding and assigning blame.......you need look no further than your mirror.

It appears to me that dumbfarmboy isn't exactly dumb. Hit the nail on the head!

Mr.Steady

It appears to me that dumbfarmboy isn't exactly dumb. Hit the nail on the head!

He is right because he contends this sort of thing happens because we don't force religion on everyone and that the liberals should accept responsibility for this and the blood is on their hands?

Why can't they just call a spade, a spade. The boy was a screwed up mess, obviously. Made worse by the failed marriage and lack of proper care. And then, the genious mother of his decided to allow him to be around weapons. Come on, how dumb was that? You don't store gasoline with a candle. Either get rid of the gas, or blow out the candle. This woman had to know she was raising a whack job, she needed to rid herself of these weapons and quit showing this kid the equipment.

No question that there are a lot of good points in here about health care, gun control, and the lousy progressive way we are raising families these day, but that's not the root cause of this terrible event. Just a bunch of bad decisions!

Sounds like he was repressed,and did not receive the help he so desprately needed.

Yep. And it appears that the mother wasn't exactly playing with a full deck, either. Sounds like she had a few issues of her own.

She obviously didn't know she gave birth to Satan spawn and since no one has any real answers on why he did what he did, I going with possession.

whats sad is the news agencies that continue to give give this loser what he wanted, notoriety.

“I remember when I first met him, he deliberately stood maybe 6 feet away from me and took three exaggerated steps toward me … stuck out his hand, shook (mine) … put it back and (took) three exaggerated steps back.”

Rain Man...with a gun.

Yes moron, ban them all... just like drugs and kiddie porn. Works great.

Lusitania...he was bad seed...no, really...bad seed. She had him at 37 years old. Studies are showing increased incidents of mental problems in children of mothers in their thirties and beyond.

no bingo boy, you're right. His mother was a POS who didn't have enough sense to handle this kid. But ban it, sure, that's the answer to everything. Like i said, drugs banned for how long now and I can get them anywhere. Kiddyporn is also banned and illegal... must not be that hard to get as I see the losers in the paper all the time with it. If they can get a whole airplane load of dope in here, they can surely get these things in. And I'm not an NRA member either. So screw you bingo and your liberal agenda

How many people in this country do not receive the help, " they so desperately need "? Who decides what help they get? Who pays for that help? Who is accountable if the assistance provided doesn't work? What time frames are covered, birth through legal adulthood, or beyond to let's say age 26 when they can be covered by their parents insurance? Do illegal immigrants qualify for "help"? If you are a Progressive, or an ultraconservative in politics or religious belief are you to be considered on a mental health medical watch list? Does the economic stability of your community or geographic surroundings qualify you for desperate help intervention. Can you be forced to "receive help"?

Gun nuts,(Not Hunters as I am one) Are sissy cowards, you could easily knock the crap out of any one of them, I know I could.

Don't look away from the mark. Not enough effort is spend in providing a second to none security for schools. Like crazies and terrorist, guns have always been out there. Can't control the crazies and terrorist, but security can be put in place that will minimize their action. Secure all schools now.

Dragging his parents and brother through the mud isn't even necessary, this dude pulled the trigger, not his Mom, Dad, or Brother. What they should be reporting on is how the cops stormed the brothers office, dragged him out his house in hand-cuffs and slammed him in the back of a police car. This guy was at work in New York City, so did he kill his mom, drive to the school, do the killings there, KILL HIMSELF, than drive to NYC and went to work? Stupid thoughts, right, but here's how the cops handled Ryan Lanza, you can see him handcuffed.... Here's an article maybe most of you have not read...

Ryan Lanza was working at his desk at the Ernst & Young when he saw TV news reports that he had killed 30 people at an elementary school in Connecticut.

It was the moment that a stunned Ryan realized what his brother Adam might have done.

Lanza quickly told his boss: 'I need to go.' He then walked out of his Times Square office, according to a co-worker who spoke to MailOnline on condition of anonymity.

Thirty minutes later, New York police officers stormed the office

.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248327/Ryan-Lanza-Moment-brother-Adam-Lanza-saw-CNN-mistakenly-report-Sandy-Hook-shooter.html

Before you all make assumptions and accusations of his mental stability, perhaps you should research Aspergers and other Autism Spectrum disorders. Everything in this article points to Asperger's related behavior. Asperger's is not mental illness. People with Asperger's are quite often extremely intelligent. They can be socially inept and/or uncomfortable in social situation. They have tics or repetitive behavior like pacing or rocking that helps with stress/agitation. Violent behavior is not part of Asperger's - although reactive violent behavior may present itself (a reaction to violence, etc. may be met in kind). His Aperger's may have shielded signs of other issues though and those may have been overlooked or explained away as part of his condition. I am in no way condoning what he did. I am pointing out that everyone needs to be careful not to blame Asperger's for his actions as you then label an entire group of people as mentally unstable and that is wrong and irresponsible.

Why did Adam Lanza's father drop out of his life two years ago? Why did his brother do the same thing? This burden was too much to be given to one person. It was not fair that the mother had to deal with this huge problem all by herself.

This young man turned his anger towards his mother by shooting her in the face several times. He showed his anger towards his brother by purposefully wearing his brother's ID hoping it would cause problems for his brother and it worked.

Mental illness is a huge problem in this country. Our culture is showing changing and not for the better. It will only get worse.

haggisbingo-2225582Name calling really diminishes your argument. You come across as a liberal nut case. I served 7 years in the Army, and the last 15 as a police officer. I really love shooting my AR-15, why because I am an American and it is my right.

So this is how the media was finally told to spin this. Here is the one excerpt from the entire story that renders everything they had to say in the rest of the report subject to skepticism and pretty much null and void due to the potential bias.

There was no custody dispute over Adam, then a teenager, when the couple split. Peter Lanza, a vice president for taxes at GE Energy and Financial Services, agreed to solely finance the cost of his two sons' college and graduate school education and to provide a car for Adam if he should want one. He also maintained joint legal custody with visitation rights and vacations with Adam. (GE is a minority owner in NBCUniversal.)

and there is still the LIBOR scandal connection for Peter Lanza to be looked at and it seems that the mysterious camouflaged adult male, found lurking in the woods outside the school directly after the shootings took place whose only statement after being apprehended by police was,

"I didn't do it."

, has dropped completely off the radar.

Lusitania is not a hunter.

Any fantasy about defeating our military with civilian weapons is just that.

Oh? I think we could probably come up with a few examples where a bunch of hill billies with AK47s defeated the US military. You have probably heard of the term guerrilla warfare before? Yes?

DumbFarmBoy,

I agree with you that the lack of male role models and general emasculation of American life is a problem, and does lead to children that have no idea how to channel their frustrations, or how to grow up. Children are violent but harmless. Junior high mostly consisted of fights for me, but really no one ever got hurt. Without male guidance however they grow up to be violent and dangerous.

StrengthInNumbers,

I agree with you too, as you've pointed out that having mom work 40 hours a week can't possibly be good for a child's emotional development.

Now you two have exact opposite political beliefs going by liberal/conservative labels. But you're saying the same thing here. It's all about family.

Maybe there's hope yet.

Hi Hal,

I'm not sure he thought that the absence of God alone is the problem. I'm pretty sure after reading his entire post that he ticked off a litany of grievances that all relate, generally, to a modern retreat from "right or wrong" conclusions. I'm an atheist, but I think this makes some sense of things. See, if weapons alone were the issue then why would mass murderers have so many common traits in terms of age range, color, socialization, apparent intelligence, and so on. Not all have the same traits, but what we do not often see are women as mass murderers, married fathers as mass murderers, old people as mass murderers, and so on.

The rub is that our lack of traditional morality also confronts each of the kinds of groups of people who don't go out and commit mass murder. I think what Dumbfarmboy was trying to get at was that the current claim that guns are what really matters is false, and that the people making this claim are the same type of people who have eschewed traditional morality. So, even if those supporting more gun restrictions get their way we will have likely achieved nothing which makes people less violent. This murderer had in his possession two pistols which he did not use, but which he easily could have used, and which would be completely legal under any assault weapon ban now promulgated. So does anyone, seriously ANYONE, think that if he didn't have the Bushmaster that in the ten minutes he had for his killing spree he couldn't have done the same damage with the Glock and Sig Sauer?

C'mon already people. There is no appetite among most Americans to actually solve these problems. Just a great many people who want to feel good about themselves as they watch 20 little kids get buried. Shame on all of those kinds of people.

Z-933870

Any fantasy about defeating our military with civilian weapons is just that.

Oh? I think we could probably come up with a few examples where a bunch of hill billies with AK47s defeated the US military. You have probably heard of the term guerrilla warfare before? Yes?

Here's my thoughts on what you state:

LOL…yea, and after that hillbilly fires off 25 rounds from his AK47, I don't know what we might send, maybe a heat seeking missile, or how about a drone.

Believe me buddy, a revolution against our Military could never be won by civilians. It may be possible only if a faction of the Military joins the civilians with ACCESS to ALL high-tech Military weapons. But then, you'll have to understand, collateral damage is going to be off the chart. You're ready for that?

...and the horse you rode in on. wrote:

Times have changed since the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, sandman. If that kid had been at any given battle in the revolutionary war, he could have taken out the entire British Army single handed with that AR-15. Muskets were THE "arms" which the 2nd amendment meant to be borne. I have no problem granting you the right to bear muskets. Military weapons are for the military.

If there would of been a revelution back then they would of only had to fight against those people that had Muskets. Now they have the same weapons that we can get except they can have AUTOMATIC where the rest of us can ONLY have semi-automatic weapons.

The 2nd admendment was to give us the ability to stand up to the government incase they overstep there bounds. We were allowed to use the same weaponry as they would use against us.

So Mosh are you saying we should be alloew to have bigger weapons at our disposal also. Like Tanks, Anti tank weapons, anti aircraft weapons and such. as that is what we would be up against.

Thanks for your input.

Friends say that Nancy Lanza, a former financial trader, had not been working in recent years. The terms of the settlement could explain why: She received $289,800 in alimony in 2012,which was to increase each year to reach $298,000 in 2015.

The mother had ZERO excuses on leaving the guns in a secured safe. No excuses whats so ever.

So the mystery slowly unravels. He was in the 1%, a person, I would think, would have no reason to be mad at the world. I initially thought after the early reports, that his mother could not afford to get him good help, but oh yes she could. She could afford the best shrinks. There does not seem to be a reason he should have flipped out the way he did. No explanation makes sense in ordinary thinking. I guess I am stuck looking at Biblical reasons, things like judgements, etc. It reminds me of the killing of the first born of Egypt or other such Biblical judgements. Then you have to wonder why. My mother gave me and my cousin a book she wanted us to read called "The Harbinger" by Johnathan Cahn. It was about signs based on Isaiah 9:10 as to why the U.S. is under judgement. This incident would be just one more. Sometimes when an thing is so weird that defies rational explanation one turns to such ideas. In the Bible, the nation Israel was usually judged for turning away from their God and abusing the poor. When children start dying, it is very serious.

Sandman and DumbFarm may belong to that part of the RWNJs who fear the government (probably rightfully, given some of the extremist rhetoric coming out of that wing of the GOP or the even-more-far-right fringe groups) and don't believe in the ballot box, at least when they don't like the results. As several of us are trying to point out, your dreams of defeating an 'oppressive' US government with civilian weapons are just that; dreams with no basis in reality.The real irony is the RW has supported a nearly unrestrained build-up of the military, making the hill you need to climb to defeat them beyond what you can obviously imagine. If virtually all restraints on weapon ownership were lifted (another fantasy of this type), you might have a chance but I doubt if you can afford an arms race with the US government; the Russians couldn't.

They're also fond of ominously mentioning 'there's 50 million gun owners' (or whatever number they come up with) while forgetting that the NRA claims to represent less than 5 million and it's by no means certain that all or even a significant amount of any of these gun owners are fellow travelers. Start a revolution, and many of these may start shooting at you.

The days of an armed populace with civilian weapons defeating a government disappeared for good in the 19th century unless you live in a very backward third world country. Virtually every 'popular' armed revolution since WWII has ended up being decided by the professional military coming down on one side or the other; by either direct intervention or withholding support from the government. In rare cases, by outside support from another government. You might have a shot if you can get Canada or Mexico to supply you; good luck with that. But in all cases it's military, not civilian weapons that make the difference; that's why the real hard-core second amendment wackos hoard illegal guns. Worst case, you get a stalemate and another country or countries comes in and imposes a peace. There's your nightmare boys; UN peacekeepers in American streets.

Nobody is seriously proposing to take away your hunting rifles or even handguns. But the second amendment as originally envisioned and under the current RW intrepretation is obsolete. Or come out and admit that you don't want any restraints on weapon ownership. Turn us into a banana republic. Maybe the next massacre can be a 'crazy' in an attack helicopter strafing a football stadium because his team lost. And you'll come out and say 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Again.

Crazy Steve, if ever there was a conflict with our own government, it is likely there would be elements of the military siding with the rebellion. Many members of the military are constitutionalists and there is an overlap with militias. This is a large country, and if ever there was a rebellion (I don't mean a few dozen kooks), it would be hard to suppress due to the shear size of the country, and yes, an armed populace. The success of such would be about how good rebels are at guerrilla warfare and how much the masses of people sympathize with them. The problem the right wing militant sorts have now is that their ideology is narrow and doesn't not appeal to most people. They hate what they call "big" government, yet the masses of ordinary Americans depend on "big" government. For the right wing ideologues to have any chance, they need to change some aspects of their ideology.

Another theory comes to mind about why this rich kid did this. What if he were influenced by someone on the outside, someone he communicated with on the internet. After all, he did destroy his computer. Most people with a grievance want that grievance to be known. They usually leave a trail or even a note. This kid acted more like a spy. He destroyed all trails. What if he were told to by his handler. I had to ask myself, what foreign spy would want to induce some young man to shoot children? One possible answer is, to cause strict gun control legislation to pass. The internationalists would love that to happen. Hmmmm....

I saw on 60 Minutes Sunday night that the Secret Service is interested in this shooting. I wonder if they suspect something like this and right now our spy agencies are trying to recover what they can from the shooter's computer.

@ Hal-282 #1.33

""Mr. Steady
""It appears to me that dumbfarmboy isn't exactly dumb. Hit the nail on the head!

""He is right because he contends this sort of thing happens because we don't force religion on everyone and that the liberals should accept responsibility for this and the blood is on their hands?

Hal, I am a dyed in the wool, stone cold ATHEIST. I do NOT believe in the Super Natural. And you are incorrect, this society does force religion on people, the religion of Science... Evolution...I believe in evolution, but it is a belief, a faith, not a FACT. Maybe you should make fewer ASSuMEptions, and improve your reading COMPREHENSION skills.

@ haggisbingo-222 #1.50

""High-capacity magazines and assault weapons exist only to kill human beings and kids!
""It's because of the irresponsible NRA that these things are easily available to anybody.
""Sue the NRA out of existence for their irresponsibility.

I don't know why I even went to the trouble to copy and paste this, YOU are a TROLL.

@ JohnBrowning #1.42

""""Lusitania...he was bad seed...no, really...bad seed. She had him at 37 years old. Studies are showing increased incidents of mental problems in children of mothers in their thirties and beyond.

He was a bad EGG, John. The seed is the fathers contribution. Some one pointed out the spawn of Satan. (Well, dad works for GE Capital) Oh snap.

OH, and speaking of, WHY ARE ALL LIBERAL NOT SCREAMING ABOUT THIS WEALTHY ELITES PAMPERED AN PROTECTED LIFE?? Isn't it true that the rich get away with everything?
But seriously, I do believe this was a factor in this incidence, the wealthy do have a tendency to put forth more effort for APPEARANCES, than for the real well being of those involved, whether it is drugs, alcohol, or mental illness or defect.
I have seen some posts that are calling this a form of Autism, missed or never diagnosed. Given the wealth of the family, I can't imagine why the kid wasn't receive the best help.
Perhaps he was, and it just has not been reported yet.

@ Fox #1.53
It is a little early for conspiracy theory. Not saying you are wrong. And it could be the 'suspect' really didn't do it.
And I am hearing that the Mall shooter in Oregon is the son of an individual involved in LIBOR scandal.

@ bob douglas-1120933 #1.56

DumbFarmBoy,

"""I agree with you that the lack of male role models and general emasculation of American life is a problem, and does lead to children that have no idea how to channel their frustrations, or how to grow up. Children are violent but harmless. Junior high mostly consisted of fights "'for me, but really no one ever got hurt. Without male guidance however they grow up to be violent and dangerous.
>StrengthInNumbers,
"""I agree with you too, as you've pointed out that having mom work 40 hours a week can't possibly be good for a child's emotional development.
""Now you two have exact opposite political beliefs going by liberal/conservative labels. But you're saying the same thing here. It's all about family.
""Maybe there's hope yet.

I guess I need to spell out the implication, that without Father, mothers too becomes irrelevant as they are busy earn a living, instead caring for the young. This is left to the daycare and schools. Good call, Bob and Numbers.

@ moshuluu #1.58

Z-933870

""" Any fantasy about defeating our military with civilian weapons is just that.
Oh? I think we could probably come up with a few examples where a bunch of hill billies with AK47s defeated the US military. You have probably heard of the term guerrilla warfare before? Yes?
Here's my thoughts on what you state:
LOL…yea, and after that hillbilly fires off 25 rounds from his AK47, I don't know what we might send, maybe a heat seeking missile, or how about a drone.
Believe me buddy, a revolution against our Military could never be won by civilians. It may be possible only if a faction of the Military joins the civilians with ACCESS to ALL high-tech Military weapons. But then, you'll have to understand, collateral damage is going to be off the """chart. You're ready for that?

Really, come on Mosh, I have to agree with you on post #1.47 But Really? Do you have a reading comprehension problem too? #1.30 How many Veterans do you think are conservatives, ready to fight for there country? How many Militia do you think it would take to change this government? My guess, it could be done with 5,000, maybe less, but more would be better. (I might even be able to do it with with as few 500, well trained and motivated troops, but the true outcome would be in doubt, not that we couldn't change the government over night.)

And if you guffaw, you don't understand Guerrilla tactics. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and not call you an idiot.

@ Steve 1962
The 2nd amendment says, "Arms" not muskets, rifles, pistols, hunting guns. (I am pretty sure you get it) But yeah, what ever the Military has, if I can afford it, then I can own it.

Just like health care, if I can afford it, I can have it.
When is the Government going to subsidize my right to own "arms"?

No, you liberals are just like Pavlov's Dog, The MSM starts saying something, and you just pick it and start yipping too, until the politicians do something stupid (e.g. the Community Restoration Act of 1994)

When you can prove that banning, or confiscating Automatic or Semi-automatic Arms in the UNITED STATES will successfully reduce crime and the risk of Socialist Government control, then I will relinquish my weapons. I have shown IRREFUTABLY, that access to deadly weapons is not the cause of this, nor is banning them a reasonable solution. PROVE ME WRONG.

You can not continue to used the UK, Canada and Australia as examples. These are relatively monolithic ethnic countries, of a small population. If you wish, I can show you an equivalent population selected from regions in this country in which the crime rate THE WHOLE CRIME RATE(murder, rape and theft) are lower than those countries.

Believe me buddy, a revolution against our Military could never be won by civilians. It may be possible only if a faction of the Military joins the civilians with ACCESS to ALL high-tech Military weapons. But then, you'll have to understand, collateral damage is going to be off the chart. You're ready for that?

Yes, a considerable amount of the military would be unwilling to take up arms against their countrymen. Some might even flip. And the collateral damage would be off the charts. Which is exactly the deterrent for the military or the government to even consider doing it.

However, if your population is totally unarmed, you don't have to worry about such things. Any assemblage of people can be easily dispersed with any number of non-lethal devices....water cannons, those microwave guns...those sound guns... bean bag shotgun shells...etc.

An armed populace means that non-lethal methods are ineffective. They would have turn the military against the population, and as I've already outlined above, this is a recipe for a major disaster on both sides.

The days of an armed populace with civilian weapons defeating a government disappeared for good in the 19th century unless you live in a very backward third world country. Virtually every 'popular' armed revolution since WWII has ended up being decided by the professional military coming down on one side or the other; by either direct intervention or withholding support from the government.

@Crazy Steve, I don't think anyone (except extremists) is arguing that a revolution is something that would occur under the current state of affairs. But America is not always going to be such a wealthy and pleasant place. Conditions can change. If you take away all the weapons while conditions are good...they're gone for good. So when things turn sour, you're SOL.

Why is this news? Who cares? What is the point? Does it change anything or simply encourage copycats? Enough, stop; aren't you and your kids already filled with enough irrational fears that you need more?

Nobody is seriously proposing to take away your hunting rifles or even handguns.

Actually, they are. Because many hunting rifles are mechanically indistinguishable from the guns used in the massacre. Handguns are just as deadly as that "assault" rifle was as well. You can put large clips in them and shoot off ammunition just as fast. You can even put longer barrels and stocks on them. This is something that many gun prohibitionists are completely missing. You can be just as deadly with handgun or a hunting rifle. There's nothing special or military about the gun this kid used except that it just looked like a military gun.

But the second amendment as originally envisioned and under the current RW intrepretation is obsolete.

Clearly millions of us do not agree...and I'm a democrat.

Yes, a considerable amount of the military would be unwilling to take up arms against their countrymen. Some might even flip. And the collateral damage would be off the charts. Which is exactly the deterrent for the military or the government to even consider doing it.

And to add to this tidbit is the fact that while our government may be considerably more armed than we are, history is littered with HUNDREDS of examples which a government force with ten times the technology and capability of a civilian population got their a$$es kicked pretty good. You've all heard of guerilla warfare- and Vietnam, Mogadishu, Iraq and Afghanistan, no????????

StrengthinNumbers,

...my thoughts exactly.

Some articles have described Adam's father as a successful G.E. tax corporate executive. G.E. has a department of 900 staff persons whose sole jobs are to ensure that the company pays zero taxes. If Adam' father was the vice president of the department, this is moral problem starring at all of us. There are few pictures that are being shown of Ms. Lanza. However, the photos that are being shown of her, show her face to be quite red. As a frequent visitor at a local tavern, in trying to cope with her son's mental illness and social isolation, she may have become a victim of excessive "consumption."

As Adam's mother, Ms. Lanza, may have tried her best to help him.

However, there is no reasonable with a son so mentally ill, for keeping five guns in the house.u

This is unbelievable...such great wealth, and such great dysfunction.

...may the victims rest in peace.

Empress-409341

Crazy Steve, if ever there was a conflict with our own government, it is likely there would be elements of the military siding with the rebellion. Many members of the military are constitutionalists and there is an overlap with militias. This is a large country, and if ever there was a rebellion (I don't mean a few dozen kooks), it would be hard to suppress due to the sheer size of the country, and yes, an armed populace. The success of such would be about how good rebels are at guerrilla warfare and how much the masses of people sympathize with them. The problem the right wing militant sorts have now is that their ideology is narrow and doesn't appeal to most people. They hate what they call "big" government, yet the masses of ordinary Americans depend on "big" government. For the right wing ideologues to have any chance, they need to change some aspects of their ideology.

This is the scary part. It is possible for a minority movement to take over, but the results are seldom encouraging. Our revolution was a happy exception, but most end up being co-opted by strongmen and what comes out the other end more typically looks like the Russian revolution, the Spanish civil war, or any number of messes like the breakup of Czechoslovakia. And these people don't have a popular national leader heading their 'movement' articulating their agenda so you'll likely see a power grab; most likely would be a 'Seven Days in May' scenario with a military government and a huge rollback in civil liberties.

The other, unspoken part of their agenda is these people are just thinly disguised anarchists, which is another irony. Military governments don't like anarchy. When the constitution was written, we had a simple agrarian society and not much government was needed. These people forget that the government grew not so much because that's the nature of government, but because the people had issues they wanted addressed or outside forces required changes, although the influence of special interests has gotten out of control. The founders saw the constitution as a 'living' document, that's why changes to it are possible. These people want to freeze it at whatever point that fits into their beliefs and pronounce it 'done'; that was never the intent. Reform is needed without a doubt, but you don't trim a tree with wild swings of an axe; careful pruning is needed. Too many want an 'instant fix'...

As to why these killers do what they do, it's unlikely we'll ever know what the 'tipping point' was for them; you can't get inside anothers head. I doubt if there's any conspiracy, but I'm sure this is being looked at.

Why should anyone who favors the constitution be surprised that people who oppose the 2nd Amendment use for at least part of their justification the simple fact that the constitution is over 200 years old. I think the irony of the point escapes these people....that old things aren't necessarily bad things. These same people are all about the 1st Amendment, or the 4th Amendment, or even the 140 year old-plus 14th Amendment, but likely can't say why other than their political ideologies are supported in something they read there. Age has nothing to do with it until it's something they read which they don't like. The tragedy of all of this is that it portrays a leftist faction in America that has no confidence in the constitution at all. To the extent they like the constitution is merely coincidental, as opposed to causative.

And why does any of this matter? Well, Dumbfarmboy earlier struck a chord I think. We have jettisoned much of our societal traditions, not because we've well thought out their replacements, but just because they were old and we don't care much about old things. Whether this is the intrinsic value of life versus the utilitarian value of life argument present in the abortion debate, or the idea that someone with more money than you simply means you have a right to their money if you want, the point is we've turned our back on many old traditions that binded us together as a people despite our varying political desires. What holds us together today? What is there among leftists that I can support, and vice versa?

Do you not see above the several posts indicating that this shooter must be a Republican and a 1%er. He had the temerity, after all, to support capitalism according to someone who claims he barely knew anything of him. And yet this is enough to brand him an evil conservative wanting to kill little kids. Sorry, but those who've written things along this line aren't a whole lot different than Lanza himself, save, we hope, the slaughtering of innocents.

Lorielle Sisson,

You left one very important detail out,

autism patients show little or no emotions, no hugs or kisses,no feelings.He was a ticking time bomb and Mom buys guns and lets him play with them..Sure glad she's gone..

1.54- I would be happy to enter the octagon with you, if you are a gun nut.

Jo Ann-666954
Why did Adam Lanza's father drop out of his life two years ago?

Read the article. It clearly states that his father kept trying to communicate with his son, but his son refused contact.

Muskets were THE "arms" which the 2nd amendment meant to be borne. I have no problem granting you the right to bear muskets. Military weapons are for the military.

Show me where it says that in the 2nd amendment. Secondly Muskets were military weapons. In fact early on rifles were more of a civilian weapon because even though they were more accurate and had longer range they fouled easier given muzzle loading and black powder. I wish if people are going to argue against guns in society they at least wouldn't give bull @!$%# arguments. This goes for the gun lobby too. I heard one guy on the news saying most hunting rifles are semi-auto. Yeah right. That's not to say that you can't hunt with a semi-auto rifle but bolt actions tends to be more accurate.

That's not to say that you can't hunt with a semi-auto rifle but bolt actions tends to be more accurate.

"Yeah, bolt-action is good for sniping people from a clock tower" - Charles Whitman.

autism patients show little or no emotions, no hugs or kisses,no feelings.He was a ticking time bomb and Mom buys guns and lets him play with them..Sure glad she's gone..

There's some logical leaps here.... extreme autism patients show little emotions and don't like to be touched... (leap 1) therefore they are prone to violence...(leap 2)since aspergers is a mild form of autism they are prone to violence.

How many Veterans do you think are conservatives, ready to fight for there country? How many Militia do you think it would take to change this government? My guess, it could be done with 5,000, maybe less, but more would be better. (I might even be able to do it with with as few 500, well trained and motivated troops, but the true outcome would be in doubt, not that we couldn't change the government over night.)

And if you guffaw, you don't understand Guerrilla tactics. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and not call you an idiot.

The 2nd amendment says, "Arms" not muskets, rifles, pistols, hunting guns. (I am pretty sure you get it) But yeah, what ever the Military has, if I can afford it, then I can own it.

Well, we now know where Sandman is coming from; he's one of those 'oppressed' because he can't buy RPGs and Surface-to-air missles to store in his bunker, not to mention the odd tank and whatnot.

And his belief in guerrilla warfare is just more of their fantasy. Very, very few guerrilla groups have managed to overthrow governments on their own (in fact, I can't recall even one). He's forgetting that we had the VC on the run at one point in the Vietnam war, and the tide didn't turn back for them until Ho sent North Vietnamese regular troops in to reinforce them, beside the weapons he supplied. Or the Afgans, who the Russians were cutting to ribbons until we started supplying them with enough weapons to turn the tide. Virtually all of these groups had outside weapon suppliers at the least. Sandman, where are you planning on getting yours? From the Mexican drug runners, or maybe the Islamists in the middle east? In fact, the latters' methods should be the ones he should adopt for success; hit various government installations to 'prove' you're a 'military' force, while striking 'soft' civilian targets to generate enough revulsion with war that the general populace gives in to at least some of your demands just to make it go away. Worked for the PLO....

I'll end my comments here with this excerpt off another board. This isn't a political board per se, but has a sub-forum for that sort of stuff. Nearly all the members are RWer's and Obama's election got them whining about secession and 2nd amendment solutions. This is from one of their most respected members/founders (and as RW as any of them, but with a lick of sense) .... minor editing for cussing....;)

_____________________________________________________________________________

I have a Russian wife. I have had a very drastic awakening of what freedom means through her eyes.

We aren't required by threat of death to do anything. We aren't required by threat of jail to do morning calisthenics with everyone in the streets. We aren't required to be any specific profession. We don't have to fight at the market for meat to eat. We don't have to wash our toilet paper for reuse. We don't have to pay off the police to keep from getting shot for "walking where there is no 'walking line'". The average American owns (more than one) vehicle. Read that again. That means here you are allowed to own property. Here, we can go to the store 24-7 and buy affordable food. We don't have to find a plot of land outside the city and plant a garden large enough to sustain us through the winter. Here we can eat chicken feet, if we want to, not because that may be the only meat you get for two weeks. Here we can live in a house, if we can afford it. We are not told to live in a highrise apartment with concrete slab floors and walls. Here you can buy anything you want if you can afford it, and keep it. People in Russia don't buy cars because there is a strong chance the Police will confiscate it "in the interest of the common good."

My sister in law is an oncologist in Barnaul. She makes, with conversion of currency and inflation factored in, what amounts to just under $300 a month. For a practicing oncologist. Here that would buy you about 15 seconds of an oncologist's time. She has a 27 year old Russian car, that barely runs. She is the envy of her peers because of it.

My wife talks about the most exciting event in her child hood was when they actually started getting disposable pads. It was a good thing because she didn't have to wash them any more. Now, you have to understand that a 1930's bucket and roller washing machine here is what they have there. No Whirlpool 4 cycle front loading ultra efficient steam sterilizing machines. Nope, these are the get your hands dirty machines, and up to about 1990, you washed your pads, "toilet rags", and your dish towels all in the same galvanized bucket...if the government saw fit to give you a washer.

My father in law was an electrician. He joined a collective that would build houses very similar to the way "Habitat for Humanity" works here, only it wasn't charitable. The idea was that everyone would pitch in and build houses, then help out those that built their house. So, he started building houses. There were about 20 total. After the first two, those people said "Screw it, I got mine, build your own house." So, he was left building his house alone. Appeals to the government were worthless. It took about two weeks to build the first house. He has been working on his for 27 years. When it is finished, there is a very good chance Putin will tell him "Thanks for building the house, now move out, some one else gets it."

Yeah, America is a really terrible place. Let's all move to ***king Poland.

Every time there is a revolt, it gets worse. The 1776 happening here was the exception, not the rule. What if we had lost? What if Jefferson and crew were just powerhungrydouchebagsfromhell that wanted power and money instead of freedom and liberty? Can you honestly tell me that those people even exist? People who would sacrifice their brothers and children for the sake of an ideal? I think not. Would you watch your children die because you believe in the principles of a reformed nation? Somehow I truly doubt it. I know I wouldn't. My children are growing up in the best nation in the world. Revolt will end that. It will replace mediocrity with corruption. It will replace freedom with insolence. It will replace liberty with servitude.

Revolt will not solve this problem. If it would, revolt would have already happened.

FWIW, neither will sitting around bitching about it on this hobby forum. Write a letter to the newspaper editor. If you're truly passionate about this, you must affect a much broader audience.

@ Rich-281 #1.73

Why should anyone who favors the constitution be surprised that people who oppose the 2nd Amendment use for at least part of their justification the simple fact that the constitution is over 200 years old. I think the irony of the point escapes these people....that old things aren't necessarily bad things. These same people are all about the 1st Amendment, or the 4th Amendment, or even the 140 year old-plus 14th Amendment, but likely can't say why other than their political ideologies are supported in something they read there. Age has nothing to do with it until it's something they read which they don't like. The tragedy of all of this is that it portrays a leftist faction in America that has no confidence in the constitution at all. To the extent they like the constitution is merely coincidental, as opposed to causative.

Well said. and excellent points

And why does any of this matter? Well, Dumbfarmboy earlier struck a chord I think. We have jettisoned much of our societal traditions, not because we've well thought out their replacements, but just because they were old and we don't care much about old things. Whether this is the intrinsic value of life versus the utilitarian value of life argument present in the abortion debate, or the idea that someone with more money than you simply means you have a right to their money if you want, the point is we've turned our back on many old traditions that binded us together as a people despite our varying political desires. What holds us together today? What is there among leftists that I can support, and vice versa?

Huh?, just kidding...

Do you not see above the several posts indicating that this shooter must be a Republican and a 1%er. He had the temerity, after all, to support capitalism according to someone who claims he barely knew anything of him. And yet this is enough to brand him an evil conservative wanting to kill little kids. Sorry, but those who've written things along this line aren't a whole lot different than Lanza himself, save, we hope, the slaughtering of innocents.

Actually I saw a screenshot a couple days ago of Adam Lanza's Facebook. Can't Verify it, but he had Anarchist/Communist as his political view. I don't know, it could be photo shopped, if anyone can verify please let me know. If this is true the kid was really messed, because the are polar opposites of the political spectrum.

Crazy Steve,

So you're saying we should let the government cross out whichever parts of the constitution they want because resisting the government could just make everything worse?

If the current government wants to pitch the 2nd amendment off the pier, they will have a lot of resistance. Right now gun sales are skyrocketing. I think it is a line that cannot be crossed.

Darn, It got awful quiet in here, What's the matter Facts get in the way of that Liberal Ideology?

Come on liberal, you are shouting all over the Internet, ban these evil guns.

Somebody start poking holes in my argument. Despite what you or have been told, most conservatives, and I am one, will listen to your argument, your side of the debate. ( I already understand your side of the debate.) I am hoping, see an incurable optimists, that I can get you to UNDERSTAND mine.

I was going to be done, but I have to reply....

So you're saying we should let the government cross out whichever parts of the constitution they want because resisting the government could just make everything worse?

Nowhere did I say that. What I was trying to point out is that the constitution was intended to be a living document, not a static set of laws. The 'strict constitutionalists' are asking for unquestioning fealty to the founding fathers and want to apply 18th century thinking to 21st century issues, which may or may not work. Our constitution is an astounding document and is the standard against which most others are measured, but it's not static. It has been changed, numerous times (and not always for the better; look no further than the 18th and 21st amendments), and may need changing yet again. And remember, amending the constitution is a long, drawn-out process requiring not only congressional approval or 2/3 of the states to propose any amendments, but also approval by a 3/4 majority of the states to ratify. A high hurdle to jump, and I'm glad for that.

But blind opposition to sane gun control using the second amendment as an excuse when the reasoning behind it ('I need my guns to revolt against my own government') has been left in the technological dust is just damnfoolishness. I'm not in favor of removing the second amendment; I'm a gun owner myself. I'm not even particularly in favor of banning 'assault rifles'. But when the 'banners' speak up and all the gun lobby can say in answer is 'don't touch my guns', any chance of meeting in the middle goes out the window.

I'm done.....

@dumbfarmboy and others, you are fools if you think your dumb a$$ 2nd amendment empowers you to engage the US military. You maybe formidable in your living room with your wii or Playstation but the military arena would make into minced meat... of that, I am positive.

@empress, guns sales are skyrocketing out of fear that gun control will be enacted - FEAR THAT GUN CONTROL WILL BE ENACTED. So much for your inalienable rights. I think the just became alienable.

Okay, I'll continue. dumbfarmboy, all of your arguments are based on a law, calculating and devoid of empathy with no bearing or concern for public safety and life. You just don't care. You are as cold and empty as a gun with no bullet and no one to shoot. I'd pity you but you'd shoot me, and that is why I will vote to take your gun from your cold dead hands.

@ Horse

At least I am willing to kill or die defending freedoms for the next generation, as it sounds like you would let them take them from you and yours. The Silly thing is we wouldn't be facing the military on their terms. But then again I am guessing you no nothing of Strategy and Tactics.

But you will note from my comments I am not advocating armed rebellion. Just that it is a necessary check on Government power. The people need to have the threat of Armed Rebellion to keep the Politicians from over stepping their bounds. Of course in many instances they have already done so, but not far enough to upset enough of the population. Undoubtedly, that day will come, we are humans and it is just the nature of the animal. Sadly.

And at your comment to empress, yes Rights can be deprived, even inalienable Rights, care to ask a Black man circa 1950? Had the Civil Rights act of 1964 not been passed, their only alternative, had they wished to achieve equality would have been armed rebellion. Either that or wait patiently for a benevolent act from from Congress, the same is true for women's suffrage.

@ Horse @1.86

Okay, I'll continue. dumbfarmboy, all of your arguments are based on a law, calculating and devoid of empathy with no bearing or concern for public safety and life. You just don't care. You are as cold and empty as a gun with no bullet and no one to shoot. I'd pity you but you'd shoot me, and that is why I will vote to take your gun from your cold dead hands.

No, it only seems like I don't care to you, because I use rational thought instead of emotional thought. I help people all the time, I just don't GIVE them help. If a nephew needs a car fixed, I supervise him, show him, teach him how to do it for himself. I could more easily take it to a mechanic, or fix it myself, but he would learn nothing and be dependent on others to do these things for him. Now he is self reliant.

Now you tell me which is more compassionate?

And yes, many of my arguments are based in Natural Law, because Mother Nature is cruel and unforgiving Mistress. Life is not fair. And I have to deal with the real world, not some fantasy utopia, you wish we could achieve.

And I would only shoot you if you physically threatened, but not much chance of that, is there?

BTW the way you are changing the subject. (a favorite liberal tactic) We were discussing the ease of access to firearms and how it relates to a dangerous society. I have yet to see where you explain why spree shooting are more prevalent now, given that at one point a crazy nut job could get dynamite and automatic weapons without any questions.

@ crazy #1.84

But blind opposition to sane gun control using the second amendment as an excuse when the reasoning behind it ('I need my guns to revolt against my own government') has been left in the technological dust is just damnfoolishness. I'm not in favor of removing the second amendment; I'm a gun owner myself. I'm not even particularly in favor of banning 'assault rifles'. But when the 'banners' speak up and all the gun lobby can say in answer is 'don't touch my guns', any chance of meeting in the middle goes out the window.

I'm done.....

Well, maybe not...

I am not using the 2nd Amendment as my primary argument. I am using the fact that at a time in our history when a person could buy automatic weapons, spree shooting were rare if non existent. Access to dangerous weapons is not the CAUSE, so banning them now will not change the outcome. It only removes the only check "we the people" have on unlimited government power.

And if you don't think that we can overthrow the government then look to the Arab Spring. These people have nothing to fight with, and there are only a few thousand. We have millions. But maybe you are right and it is fantasy. But at least I'll die trying, unlike the sheep that you are.

What if, and I say What if, Obama(and it could be any President in the future, maybe a TEA party type) decided he liked being President, and with the help of a few Congressmen (it would only take a couple hundred power hungry types {and we don't have any of those in office now} and a couple generals, he decided there would be no more elections and declares martial law? How do you respond? Vote him out? (no more elections, remember?) Protest? yeah right, that works pretty well in China.

But that can't happen here. right?

Farmboy, I think your Teabuddies would enthusiastically support a tea party candidate with those ideals. They would rejoice in anarchy, shoot the town to pieces and anything that moved. Just like a video game. You guys need to get out of your minds - you're thinking yourselves into extinction.

@ horse

ARE you just stupid? No where in the TEA party is any one advocating Anarchy, just limited government. The truth is I just put the comment about the TEA party to show I that I understand corruption comes from both sides. It is only more likely to come from a Socialist leaning personality though.

You are truly an idiot, to think way you do.

Call me an idiot if it makes you happy. I say you're overestimating the intelligence of tea party supporters and underestimating their intentions. Remember Sharron Angle and her 2nd amendment remedies? Apparently she thinks things are bad enough already to have that discussion. I'll take my freedom without the side of innocent bloodshed, thank you very much.

And that's a good point in and of itself. Modern gun nuts are far more fanatical than the American revolutionaries and founding fathers ever were about those "rights." Just like the "freedom of religion" crowd who thinks the establishment clause somehow establishes America as a Christian nation, you guys are going overboard with this "if I can afford it then I can buy it" mentality in the definition of "arms." Are you really equating Democrats interest in regulating "loose" firearms and ammunition with British control over American freedom? That's what I mean, you guy's are fanatics.

Bottom line is I disagree that an affront would come from the left. Current events like Donald Trump calling for revolution and Sharron Angle and her 2nd amendment remedies surely suggest otherwise. And believe me the lower middle class who would likely support socialism have much more to complain about than billionaire Donald Trump.

@ horse

I do know one thing, and I can only speak to those I know, but the TEA party people I know are quite a bit sharper than the liberals in my area. (Maybe I just live in an area with some truly simple minded liberals)

No, I am unaware of Sharon Angles 2nd Amendment Remedies. If you have read my posts, all of them, you will note that I am not advocating either Rebellion or Secession at this time.

And I believe you are mistaken if you think that Christians believe that this is a Christian Only country. My take on it, being a former Christian, is the values on which they and the Founding Fathers based their societal beliefs. Discipline, manners, and respect. You have none of that judging by your Avatar, and your postings.

And if you have read anything from our Founding Fathers you would know, and I think this is where you are confusing Passion with Fanatical, they were very passionate about those very freedoms. Religion, Speech, and Liberty. None of which matter if you can not defend them against tyranny.

Are you really equating Democrats interest in regulating "loose" firearms and ammunition with British control over American freedom? That's what I mean, you guy's are fanatics.

I have no idea where this came from or what you mean?

And if I read those calls from Trump at least correctly, it was call to return to Constitutionalism, Where by laws aren't created in courts. If the people desire such things as abortion, SSI, ACA, welfare, Subsidies then let them create Amendments to allow it.

Your last line explains why I called you stupid [c : lacking intelligence or reason] and an idiot [: a foolish or stupid person] in the last 80 or so years, where have the vast majority of rebellions or uprising come from. That's right, the lower classes spurred on by socialist idealism. I meant no malice in the words I chose even though in present day they are considered some what pejorative.

Now let's get back to the argument at hand shall we.

Up until 1934, any one in the US could order and have shipped through the USPS, a fully automatic sub-machine(Tommy Gun) or even a BAR(both were heavily used during WWII). Where were all the spree shootings then(other than criminal gangland)? It was not uncommon to walk into a hardware store and buy a case of dynamite to remove tree stumps. If easy access to deadly weapons is the measure of a deadly society, why were things like the "Bath School Disaster" not regular occurrences?

Care to take a crack at it? Discipline, manners, and respect.

Unfortunately, our courts have determined that mentally ill individuals have the right to refuse treatment (an unintended consequence of liberal legislation following the movie One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest).

We now know that Ms. Lanza was trying to get conservator-ship of her son, so she could have him committed, what seems to be something of a lengthy and difficult process. Maybe instead of complaining about easy access to guns, maybe we should be talking about the Public Safety these people present and institute means of locking them up and then sort out the details.

But what the heck do I know, I am a Fanatic [: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion]

Both Iran and China want the U.S. to enforce gun control.

I thought this nation was bigger than all this. We fought together during WW1, WW2, Vietnam. Now our govt doesn't trust it's own citizens? These are our elected political servants trying to dictate to us. They are not our parents. I don't agree with further restrictions on guns.

From what the article states about how he typically acted - didn't like being around people, etc... sounds to me like he may have had Asbergers syndrome, or at least a type of it, as I don't know that much about it. My nephew has it and sounds almost just like the shooters attitude towards people.

My nephew is not stupid, nor does he have 'mental' issues or problems, he just suffers from asbergers to the point where he is typically very uncomfortable in front of people, large or small groups of them, family included. I remember once when my daughter was getting good at crawling came at him one day with a book in her mouth and he yelled to me; "Auntie, it's coming after me! What do I do?", while trying to avoid her by walking backwards.

I specifically remember him calling her "It" instead of her or she as most people would do. I just told him she wanted him to read to her but he was literally afraid of even touching her because he didn't want to hurt her, even through my encouragement that it was fine and he wouldn't hurt any part of her if she sat in his lap, he wanted nothing to do with her and would literally turn around the minute he saw her coming. His younger brother would then stop her in her tracks and read to her or play with her instead.

Basically though, I'm not saying this idjit had any excuse to kill all those kids and adults, all I'm saying is it sounds like he may have some sort of asbergers syndrome and that people should not blame that factor, if it's true, on what he did. I do lay some blame on the mother however for having that many guns available in the house where a teen lives that obviously has some problems, which the article states she knew about. That's what you would call 'bad parenting' in my opinion.

The whole situation is just too sad, and obviously at this time of year it seems even worse as these kids probably still believed in Santa. And God only knows what's going to happen to the kids who survived, like the little girl who played dead while everyone around her were all shot and had died, including the teacher. Imagine going through that while at the age of 6 or 7... I can't even begin to imagine the problems she's going through right now and God help her parents get her through this trauma.

We now know that Ms. Lanza was trying to get conservator-ship of her son, so she could have him committed, what seems to be something of a lengthy and difficult process. Maybe instead of complaining about easy access to guns, maybe we should be talking about the Public Safety these people present and institute means of locking them up and then sort out the details.

But what the heck do I know, I am a Fanatic [: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion]

You must be completely stupid if you'd prefer to let the government investigate every facet of your life rather than making it more difficult to buy weapons designed for killing people. You and your tea-party ilk are about as sharp as bowling balls....

Actually, this article raised more questions for me than it answered. Not only did it not describe sociopathic behavior, but it didn't even list the anti-social behavior you reference. Anti-social behavior is described as lacking "consideration for others and may cause damage to the society". The fact that he stepped forward to shake hands, and then stepped backwards, shows that he was aware of societal norms and tried to behave as best he could given his own limitations. Likewise with playing Dance Revolution in a crowded, public space, even though not being able to play it with a partner. Something else happened with him. Something horrible, and I'd like to know what it was, but this article doesn't explain anything. I wonder if he had recently been placed on a new drug regimen to which he reacted terribly. This knowledge won't bring all the victims back, but these kinds of extremely violent responses to certain drugs are becoming more frequent, and IF this is the case, society needs to know.

I think that instead of spending money on weapons she should have taken him to psychiatrists. Anyone who is acting that way needs psychiatric help.

oh joy....................... Vegan diet.

Humans are built to eat animals.

It is just the way it is.

I agree with OhJoy - So far everything I've read on him describes that he had some odd behavior, but nothing violent. I still think more research needs to be done regarding psychotropic drugs. I've had some experience with anti-depressants, and know others who have as well, and what I can tell you is that when you have a bad reaction to this stuff, look out!

Mrgusto, we have had 60 of these types of incidents in 30 years, all the shooters were meat eaters except this kid, so 99'9% of mass murderers are meat eaters and 1 is vegan and you want to blame his diet?

How do you know they were all meat eaters?

Because 99% of humans are meat eaters so it would only make sense that 99% of mass murderers are meat eaters. Because most mass murderers are conservatives and very few conservatives are vegans. Because when you kill an animal it's body releases the neurohormones and neurotransmitters for fight or flight, fear, anger, and hate and then meat eaters consume those chemicals making them fearful, hateful and angry. Because the forbidden fruit was not an apple, it was meat. Because I have never met a violent vegan. Because the media who like to tell us what kind of toilet paper mass murderers use would have told us if any other mass murderers were vegan. Because you are a meat eater and I can tell you are just one Fox news broadcast away from becoming one yourself.

This guy needed help for his mental condition. I am also involved in the mental health field and it doesn't sound like this guy met the diagnostic criteria for ASPD ( Anti-Social Personality Disorder). Obviously, his mother never took this kid to any professional mental health care providers.There was definately no problem with not having enough money to get the care this kid needed, so I can only guess that the parents of this kid had a negative view of psychology and mental health counseling.

This is the kind of thing that will happen over and over again until the day when there is no stigma attached to mental illness. We, as a country, refuse to fund mental health care. The stigma of mental illness is a real problem in this country and worldwide.

The mother obviously had as many issues as her son.She obviously thought she could handle this situation herself and was so woefully wrong. And 20 innocent children and 6 adults paid the ultime price for her ego and hubris. Everyone needs help sometimes.

@OhJoy-2623976 - Agreed. I as well am left with more questions than answers. Why did Nancy frequent a bar so much to vent about her troubled son and take him target practicing rather than get him the help he so desperately needed? I am not pointing blame but this sounds a little like neglect.

So this is how the media was finally told to spin this? Here is the one excerpt from the entire story that renders everything they had to say in the rest of the report subject to skepticism and pretty much null and void due to the potential bias.

There was no custody dispute over Adam, then a teenager, when the couple split. Peter Lanza, a vice president for taxes at GE Energy and Financial Services, agreed to solely finance the cost of his two sons' college and graduate school education and to provide a car for Adam if he should want one. He also maintained joint legal custody with visitation rights and vacations with Adam. (GE is a minority owner in NBCUniversal.)

and there is still the LIBOR scandal connection for Peter Lanza to be looked at and it seems that the mysterious camouflaged adult male, found lurking in the woods outside the school directly after the shootings took place whose only statement after being apprehended by police was,

"I didn't do it."

, has dropped completely off the radar.

deprogrammer

99% of humans are meat eaters? Did you just make that number up or do you have backing? I have met a violent vegan. But that isn't to say she was violent because of what she ate or didn't eat. Being conservative has no bearing on what you eat. You are just spitting out hate any way you can.

It appears that Adam had a disorder, possibly Autism or Aspergers, and murdering all those children and innocent people had nothing to do with what he ate. I only wish he would've received help before he did this, but he didn't and now we are all hurting from this incident.

Can't we all just stop the fighting for one damn minute and just honor the dead!? I mean seriously people shut it. Stop argueing stop pointing fingers and just shut your flipping mouths and be silent for one moment of peace for these kids.

and there is still the LIBOR scandal connection for Peter Lanza to be looked at and it seems that the mysterious camouflaged adult male, found lurking in the woods outside the school directly after the shootings took place whose only statement after being apprehended by police was,

"I didn't do it."

, has dropped completely off the radar.

I agree!!! I was just saying this last night. My boyfriend said that initial reports said the person in the woods was Adam's brother. I have not read that, but then again I haven't read anything that even talks about the man in the woods. Who was it and did they tell Adam to do it? Were they part of this? Why are we not being told anything about them?

Deprogrammer how do you know that they are conservative? Let me guess a Liberal would NOT have the work ethics to put forth that much effort. Is that what you mean. Or are you saying only conservatives would go BONKERS and kill innocent children. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN.

How do you know they were all meat eaters?

Does this matter? Does anyone actually think a vegan diet encourages you or discourages you from becoming deranged killer?

This boy had Asbergers syndrome but was good at dancing?.....I don't think so.

Most people with Aspergers are a little awkward and dancing is not something they would excel at, ESPECIALLY not in front of other people. Someone got this diagnosis WRONG!

He didn't kill all those people with his dance moves.

It's probably what he played alone in the dark with a Black Ops mask and PS3 Machine Gun..........

He didn't play video games, he watched Fox News.

I was very shy and withdrawn growing up. I also enjoyed playing grand theft auto and similar games. Yet here I am, doing well, and have never even considered harming another person...

But Peyton, how many cars have you stolen..............

Watch out, over half a million people playing Black ops II last night. Going to be a bloody day, IXLR8.

Guns don't kill people, X-Box kills people. LOL! Dummy.

I guess deprogrammer is a liberal HACK. Why else would he try to politicize his statements. WHAT A TROLL.

hey deprogrammer, do us all a favor and put a sock in it. Every time you open your mouth you remind people why our country is circling the toilet bowl. Your purely partisan position only reinforces the reality that if Obama and his liberal posse suggest it, you will profess it until the end.

You define sheeple!!!! Crawl back under your tofu rock!!

I will not put a sock in it, we have freedom of speech in this country. The only reason you don't like what I am saying is because you know it's true. Yes what I am saying is partisan, just as everything you say has a conservative wingnut slant. so why don't you crawl back under your cowpie because you and the rest of the Fox propaganda zombies are the ture definition of sheeple.

People,.. can't we all get along? (-R.King)

As for video games, it is so terrible that a kid would end this way after starting off with Super Mario Lanza Brothers..

Ban Ass Burgers..!

Yeah, and Judge Judy makes $48 million/year or $131,506.85 per day for her little reality judge show. So what.

I have a vision, you are scary nuts and should be issued breakable plastic forks............

Her son might have been a victim of either some Neurological Disorder caused by a Bio-Contaminant in the air. Agent Orange was famous for causing Nerve Damage, Neurological Disorders, Cancer MS, etc.

If Adam was experiencing voices in the head or any type supposed Mental Illness, then it's possible that he was a victim of Non-Consensual Electronic Weapon Testing.

There are a lot of Neuro-Technologies out there (built with the Department of Neuroscience) that are very classified and currently being Tested on people in our nation Non-Consensually. There are tons of victims reporting these symptoms on Facebook groups. Look up Electronic Harassment.

Watching Fringe, huh? Maybe the X-Files?

Or MMA or Gangster Rap or Horror movies or demonic possession or alien genes or Muslim Hypnosis or.........

@david193;

This tragedy goes much deeper than video games causing one to commit acts of violence. To commit such an act you would have to be "checked out" and completely submerged in your own world of hate and loneliness. This was years of repression and untreated issues that came to a horrific head.

This monster learned with real guns not joysticks.

It's not like only the kids in the U.S. play these violent video games. Kids all over the world play the same games but they're not running around executing innocent people.

People all over the world are running around executing people.

Read the news.

Many people don't have electricity or TVs though.

I'm talking about kids in 1st world nations. Not 3rd world rat holes.

Sounds like you did a great job. What socialize training did you get him? Was the training through counseling. Is it medication.??I'm glad you shared and informed. Great post.

This is a case for Mulder.

So this is how the media was finally told to spin this. Here is the one excerpt from the entire story that renders everything they had to say in the rest of the report subject to skepticism and pretty much null and void due to the potential bias.

There was no custody dispute over Adam, then a teenager, when the couple split. Peter Lanza, a vice president for taxes at GE Energy and Financial Services, agreed to solely finance the cost of his two sons' college and graduate school education and to provide a car for Adam if he should want one. He also maintained joint legal custody with visitation rights and vacations with Adam. (GE is a minority owner in NBCUniversal.)

and there is still the LIBOR scandal connection for Peter Lanza to be looked at and it seems that the mysterious camouflaged adult male, found lurking in the woods outside the school directly after the shootings took place whose only statement after being apprehended by police was,

"I didn't do it."

, has dropped completely off the radar.

Quit running pictures and stories on the gunman and his family. This kind of "glory" only stirs up others who would like to have this kind of coverage.

Tell us about the families of the teachers, the students, the survivors. Don't tell us about things we can do nothing about, and really don't want to encourage.

massive numbers of assault weapons

Did I miss something?

Massive numbers as in zero or one?

In the news they said she had a gun collection she was proud. She thought she needed to stock up for an economic meltdown. You know poor people taking over the world. She would need guns to protect her home.

May be she listens to Glen beck and Rush with an evening of Fox and friends. Whatever she heard she wanted to be ready for the chaos "lock and load". He had enough ammo to kill everyone in the school.

Two hand guns, a shot gun, and a rifle (not an assault weapon, BTW, a rifle) do not equal 'massive numbers of assault weapons'.

So this is how the media was finally told to spin this. Here is the one excerpt from the entire story that renders everything they had to say in the rest of the report subject to skepticism and pretty much null and void due to the potential bias.

There was no custody dispute over Adam, then a teenager, when the couple split. Peter Lanza, a vice president for taxes at GE Energy and Financial Services, agreed to solely finance the cost of his two sons' college and graduate school education and to provide a car for Adam if he should want one. He also maintained joint legal custody with visitation rights and vacations with Adam. (GE is a minority owner in NBCUniversal.)

and there is still the LIBOR scandal connection for Peter Lanza to be looked at and it seems that the mysterious camouflaged adult male, found lurking in the woods outside the school directly after the shootings took place whose only statement after being apprehended by police was,

"I didn't do it."

, has dropped completely off the radar.

Thank you Enough... I am tired of everyone calling the Bushmaster an assault weapon. It is not. It is sem-automatic, not an assault rifle. The media keeps using that term incorrectly to keep stirring people up. I say, go ahead... ban assault weapons. You wouldn't be banning any that were used here.

a hole in his soul. not whole as that would mean he has a whole soul, not just part of one.

Too bad he didn't just kill himself, instead of killing so many others.

Maybe he was playing a video game called "Call of Duty" Modern Warfare 2. he dressed the part exactly. black plants black military jacket.

"Vladimir Makarov, who tells the player's character and the other gunmen not to
speak any Russian throughout the scene. Although the player is technically
allied with the terrorists, they are not forced to kill any of the civilians
themselves to fulfill the mission's objectives. Civilian scream and run in
terror, the injured crawl away leaving a trail of blood, and some try to drag others to safety,
only to be shot with bloody results. The player also cannot kill the terrorists
themselves which would result in failure of the mission."

This part of the game can be skipped but may be he didn't. You can get a PC version of it and he spent hours on his computer. No one will ever know???

Let's not be hasty in blaming the shooter's mom from having guns to getting the "right" help for her son. It is easy to blame a parent or parents after the fact of a crime of any sort.

Let me just say this. I have a friend who is a gun nut. Unfortunately he also fails to give his daughter much attention. His wife isn't much better. My non professional option is because of this, the kid is very poorly behaved and has had lots of issues. She can be down right mean sometimes. Their response to this is to be really hard ass with her which I think she's getting numb too. However one of the things they do on occasion is going shooting. She's 9 right now but I'm wondering if one day she will pick up one of his 100+ guns and shoot him in the head when she's older.

My point is these things are probably more predictable than you think from a third party standpoint even if they aren't noticed by the parents.

I saw an interview with the man who headed the "tech club" the guy was in while at high school. If half of what the man said was true, then the school system was very aware of his condition and did everything and then some for this guy.

@ roy

I saw the interview too. The kid was odd but it didn't really sound like there were any signs that he would go completely off the deep end. At least back when he was in school.

That doesn't help if you steal the guns.

The mom was a complete idiot.

@ Computer

Yeah, NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) should link to medical records. It would have prevented the Virginia Tech shooter from buying his guns.

Though in this case it wouldn't have made a difference.

Solution: UNLESS YOU ARE THE US MILITARY, OR YOU ARE AFFLIATED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROTECTING GOOD FROM EVIL...YOU CAN NOT PURCHASE ASSAULT WEAPONS. EVER...PERIOD!

You folks that have deer blinds, the kind that you keep lots of deer fodder spread under and around...you don't need a ton of fire power to sit up on your perch and wait for your "trained" deer to come to supper so you can "hunt." If that turns you on, then wonderful...you have your hunting weapons. And I suppose you also need your personal defence weapons, like a hand gun. That's fine. Except for myself, I honestly do not object to hunting and/or personal protection. Anything more than that is OVER KILL.

We all heard the coroner in Newtown say that the seven children that he examined were all killed with the assault rifle. A weapon with bullets that are designed to rip flesh to shreds on contact. A reporter asked if the children suffered? The answer, "if there was suffering, it was brief." What eats at my gut is 6 and 7 yr old children looking up at the person they trust to protect them and watch her go down in a bloody heap. Then the screams and crying...one after another the children begin to fall, until...the last one. OMG in Heaven, the horror all around, the terror of no where to run, who to run to....there's nobody here. "Where is my Daddy...where's my Mama?" Can a child think that fast in the midst of the carnage?

Jesus Christ...I wish you could help me to understand, but I know I never will.

There is a time and a place for the type of weapons that young man took inside that school. Never in his life would there be a time or place that he would need to possess such "weapons of mass destruction." I also can't imagine a purpose his Mother might have for weapons like those, or how/why it would be legal for her to own them.

Let's put our smirks away, let's not call names, let's not try to push our feelings and beliefs about hunting onto one another... let's COME TOGETHER in remembrance of all the adults and children that have died in this cruel manner but seem to fade from memory as time passes until it happens again. Then we all mourn, we ask "Why?" We try to sort through it, but our minds, our hearts CAN NOT take it in. Friday, eleven days before Christmas, 2012, twenty children were brutally cut down with a weapon that left them all mutilated. With these babies were their beloved teachers that died trying to protect them.

MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR YOUR AVERAGE CITIZEN TO OWN AN ASSAULT WEAPON. There is not one reason not to do this, and hundreds of reasons to GET IT DONE ASAP. Don't let those precious faces fade into oblivion without doing SOMETHING to curtail the ease these men/women have had in taking too many innocent lives.

Go right ahead and make it unlawful for an average citizen to own an assault weapon. You need to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops to get one now. BTW, the gun used in this tragedy WASN'T AN ASSAULT WEAPON. That is what is so incredibly stupid about the argument that everyone is putting forth. Just because a rifle LOOKS like a military gun, doesn't mean it is one. You can get AIR RIFLES that look like military guns. Those are not going to be covered by a ban, any more than the rifle used here is going to be covered by a ban. It was the same as the hunting rifle by the same manufacturer, it just had the 'military appearance'. You gun haters have no clue what you are even talking about and it makes you look extremely uneducated. Semi-automatic is NOT anything special, and you really can't burst fire one the way some people seem to think you can.

Enough - So my bolt-action .223, with a 5-shot (1 in the chamber) refillable magazine would come in just as handy say, if I wanted to cut down a crowd of people.... RIGHT? Why do you suppose the military uses 30 round magazines instead of 5 or 10? Or armor piercing FMJ rounds? Do you have any CLUE? What purpose would a weapon like this serve in a non-combat situation (other than to massacre the public)? Hunting maybe? Last time I hunted, 1 or 2 shots either got the job done, or made it harder... your AR with its 30 round magazines are for killing people and mental masturbation. You boys have fun playing with your dic.. err I mean guns now...

His behavior with the dancing game was pretty freaky.

Living in the cyber world is not healthy.

IXLR8, there are alot of teenage boys/men in the United States who play the video games you mentioned yet they aren't driven to go out a murder people.

No normal person would play a "game" like the one described. A normal person would be disgusted and repulsed by that level of realism. The enjoyment and consumption of games depicting carnage is a red flag in itself.

Let me ask you this: suppose there was a video game in which your avatar racked up points depending on how many toddlers you could sodomize. Would you think a person who spent hours every day playing that game had a problem, whether or not they had raped your kid—yet?

Would you feel safe in a society where a large number of men and boys constantly played that game?

Would it occur to you that after "practicing" the act repeatedly in a realistic video game it would be easier for a person drawn to that sort of thing to do it in real life?

Would you say that by virtue of the fact a person wanted to play that game they have self-identified as a potential pedophile?

pattern, if you watch kids playing the violent video games at a movie theatre there is the problem. It is disturbing and gross to see their faces light up with the blood and body parts flying. And the parents keep putting the dollars in the machines??

A great post !!!!

Living in the cyber world is not healthy.

So says the person who has posted more than a dozen times on this article.

Citizens with guns are a balance to a government with guns.

Try living in Syria where the can't own guns.

I don't want to live under three generations of Obama rule.

You might like living in North Korea.

They have the gun laws you love.

A gun puts a:

1. 5'3" 105 lbs. woman on equal footing with a 6'4" 240 lbs. rapist

2. senior citizen on equal footing with a 20 yr. old punk high on meth who is trying to rob the senior

3. person who is by themselves on equal footing when confronted/attacked by a small group of punks

etc, etc, etc.....

A gun puts a:

1. 5'3" 105 lbs. woman on equal footing with a 6'4" 240 lbs. rapist

2. senior citizen on equal footing with a 20 yr. old punk high on meth who is trying to rob the senior

3. person who is by themselves on equal footing when confronted/attacked by a small group of punks

4. 20 year old crazy in the position to be executioner of 6 and 7 year olds...

@ Crazy

Where did I say some nut never uses a gun for evil or bad purposes? However.....

A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime

* Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.

* Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:

* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;

* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.

* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award.

* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state. FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14

* Do firearm carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.

1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.

2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15

C. Criminals avoid armed citizens

* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.16

* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.

* Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:

* Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and,

* Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.

Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection

* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.

* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.20

Justice Department study:

* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun.

* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.

* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.

A gun puts a:

1. Monumental BURDEN on its owner to ALWAYS take every possible precaution necessary to make sure it does not end up in the hands of ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT RIGHTFULLY OWN IT.

2. Small, curious child and anyone around him/her at ENORMOUS RISK when #1 is not followed.

3. Target on the back of anyone and everyone in close proximity of it.

etc., etc., etc.

@ thedeb

Yes. Responsible gun owners always put safety first. Unfortunately, many people are not responsible & they make the rest of the responsible owners look bad.

I'll point out that nearly all your NRA 'statistics' refer to handguns, and you failed to note that it was a high-capacity rifle that was used in this case.

They also don't add up; your '2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.' That means that nearly 200,000 criminals were shot by private citizens, but 'Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).' So only 3/4 of one percent were fatal shootings? I smell BS. And again, by your statistics, that means that almost 4000 innocent people were shot. How many of them were killed?

It's crap like this that misleads the gullible and upsets people who can actually think....

@ Crazy

They are not NRA statistics. The NRA didn't conduct the studies. Also your taking numbers & info from different paragraphs & assuming they are all from 1 study, which they aren't. So you're wrong & there is no B.S.

Here, if you want to see all of the boring crap about where the figures come from:

Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology.

Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator....

I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188.

Wolfgang says there is no "contrary evidence." Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls -- one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times -- that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study.

Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997).

As for Dr. Kleck, readers of his materials may be interested to know that he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate.

2 According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois. 3Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185.

4Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185.

5 Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at on the internet. The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study's authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year.

Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183.
6Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.
7George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93.
8Id. at 164, 185.

9Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, "Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense," The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 -- a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime."

br>10 One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000).

11Lott and Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns."
12Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, "Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003," Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989.

The company specializes in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states.

13Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002).

14Florida's murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79.

15 John R. Lott, Jr., "Right to carry would disprove horror stories," Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003).
16Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15.

17Compare Kleck, "Crime Control," at 15, and Chief Dwaine L. Wilson, City of Kennesaw Police Department, "Month to Month Statistics: 1991." (Residential burglary rates from 1981-1991 are based on statistics for the months of March - October.)
18Kleck, Point Blank, at 140. 19Kleck, "Crime Control," at 13. 20U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31. 21U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985): 27.

HAH!

They are not NRA statistics. The NRA didn't conduct the studies. Also your taking numbers & info from different paragraphs & assuming they are all from 1 study, which they aren't. So you're wrong & there is no B.S.

It doesn't matter where they're from, although I have no doubt you found them through NRA links. And it also doesn't matter that they're from more than one study, although I never said they were. The fact is these 'facts' contradict each other, so at least some of this information wrong, and when you quote bogus info that makes all of it suspect. Unless you're using that special 'Karl Rove' math that's only for republicans.

Like I said, gullible....

@ Crazy

It doesn't matter where they're from

LOL. Just like a liberal to ignore the facts.

Have it your way. First you try to put down the stats I provided by saying that they are wrong/biased because the NRA provided the figures.

Then when I show you the stats are from independent sources then you still dismiss them & say you don't care where they come from.

You sir are close minded & have your blinders on. You even refuse to consider anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions or your anti-gun agenda.

If you read through the 2 long posts above you'll see that even researchers on the anti-gun side respect the studies listed above that were conducted by Dr. Kleck. Even the Clinton administration justice department supports the general conclusions.

Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator....

Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997).

Even if the number of people who defended themselves with their firearms in this country was only 150,000/year (to pull a figure out of the air), instead of the 1.5 million or 2.5 million as cited in the stats/studies, those 150,000 defensive uses would still far outnumber the people who are murdered by guns every year.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime report for 2011:

12,664 murders in the U.S.

Out of the total above 8,583 were murders by firearms, broken down as follows:

6,220 committed by handguns

323 committed by rifles

356 committed by shotguns

1,684 committed by unknown type of firearms

1,694 committed by knives or cutting instruments

1,659 committed by other weapons

728 committed by hands/fists/feet etc..

The Kleck statistics have been bouncing around for awhile and it is my understanding there is plenty of criticism as to their accuracy.

quote David Hemenway :

Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz conducted a survey of civilian defensive gun use in 1992. In 1993, Kleck began publicizing the estimate that civilians use guns in self-defense against offenders up to 2.5 million times each year. [1] This figure has been widely used by the National Rifle Association and by gun advocates. It is also often cited in the media [2] and even in Congress. [3] The Kleck and Gertz (K-G) paper has now been published. [4] It is clear, however, that its conclusions cannot be accepted as valid. [Page 1431]

Two aspects of the K-G survey combine to create severe misestimation. The first is the likelihood of positive social desirability response, sometimes referred to as personal presentation bias. An individual who purchases a gun for self-defense and then uses it successfully to ward off a criminal is displaying the wisdom of his precautions and his capability in protecting himself, his loved ones, and his property. His action is to be commended and admired.

Some positive social desirability response bias, by itself, might not lead to serious overestimation. However, combined with a second aspect of the survey-- the attempt to estimate a very rare event--it does. The search for a "needle in a haystack" has major methodological dangers, especially where researchers try to extrapolate the findings to society as a whole.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)
87 (1997): 1430.
Posted for Educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please visit the local law library or obtain a back issue.

SURVEY RESEARCH AND SELF-DEFENSE GUN USE: AN EXPLANATION OF EXTREME OVERESTIMATES
David Hemenway *

Copyright © 1997 Northwestern University School of Law & David Hemenway

The kid was home schooled. The problem was his mother. Try reading all the articles. He
had trouble just shaking someone’s hands. He spent all his free time on PC video games. His mother had no idea what was on his computer. What he was missing and she could not teach was empathy and love of others. She was expecting the economy to fail and doomsday to occur. She was stock piling
weapons and ammo to protect her home from a possible takeover. My family has guns. We hunt. We are teach our kids to volunteer.

When did this woman teach her child to care for others??? I’m in my 50’s and my mom taught us all to volunteer in our community. This is what is missing.The article doesn't state anything about the boys ability to show he had empathy for others. This is what is wrong. Everyone is me,me,me. He didn't even care about her, and he didn't snap. He tried to buy guns before. Strength in numbers had it right he found the Elephant in the room.

Gossamer Wings,

Although I appreciate any post about this massacre that doesn't focus on gun control, blaming parents for having emotionally ill children is ignorant. His problems were problems that neither you nor your mother ever encountered. His mother didn't make him socially isolated, he was born that way, and she was doing what she could to deal with the situation. Some of her interventions were counter-productive, but she was doing the best she could, and probably with very little support from the schools, her community, or the boy's dad. Raising an emotionally-impaired child is the most difficult, least rewarding, loneliest job on earth. And look, one of her sons doesn't shoot people, went to regular school, and probably wishes he lived in Syria about now.

One thing I do think the "experts" will conclude when examining all these horrific mass-shootings: nature trumps nurture every time.

As a health care provider and mother, I do agree that nature typically trumps nurture.

However, in this situation the parents had the financial resources and therefore availability to mental health support services. Unfortunately this is not the case for so many living with these same types of "born that way" issues. That's one integral piece to this huge and scary issue. How much professional, outside support was sought?

No doubt, the constant barrage of violent imagery in video games (which are played for hours, day after day, ..for years in many instances) are causal to a desensitization in those that would not have been by nature born to exhibit mental, emotional illness. And for those who are already struggling? Have we learned yet that he spent many hours playing Call of Duty or something similar?

Training (supported by his mother) in firearms? Immediate access to same?

She apparently loved her son and wanted to protect him, but her profound lack of critical thinking proved to be painfully detrimental to scores of others.

His mother didn't make him socially isolated, he was born that way, and she was doing what she could to deal with the situation. Some of her interventions were counter-productive, but she was doing the best she could, and probably with very little support from the schools, her community, or the boy's dad.

She was banking over a 1/4 million per year... She didn't have a job... She knew he was damaged... custody was amiable... This woman had every resource in the world available to her. (money, time, understanding)... SHE DID EVERYTHING WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and her son punished her for it.

It's clear from the comments posted after any article on any American news site that education in this country is failing badly. If all these users were tested on READING COMPREHENSION the majority would apparently fail big time. No where in the article does it say his parents forced him to be Vegan. Considering he'd been a legal adult for two years, I suspect it was his own personal choice.

It doesn't say it was his parents choice that he be vegan. I didn't like meat until I was in my 20s. I used to have to sit at the table for hours because I wouldn't eat it. Sometimes kids just don't like it. Now I crave it at every meal.

Guns will never be banned in the US.

If that happens, you may as well look in the mirror and call yourself "comrade".

Please stop calling him a 'man'. He wasn't even close to being one. I would like for us all to start using the term 'grey alien human hybrid'. This is how Ancient Aliens work. I'm really surprised you don't know this yet people!

Exactly.

I agree, the consensus is to go after guns. Now lets look at why these people do this and its time to attack the first ammendment. Why not go after the media and make it illegal to give the names or items such as this about the animals that commit these crimes. If they just kill themselves then nobody ever hears about them, but take innocent victims and now you give these dirtbags what they want. Their 15 minutes of fame and every one hears about them. Make it a law that you can no longer identify these bums or anything about them in the press. Once they know that nobody will ever know who they are then this will stop.

For some reason when you type out the word "with" your keyboard shorts out and switches the 't' to an 'h' or the 'h' with a 't'. Whichever way! But if I were you I'd get it checked out soon. Just lending a helping hand!

jersey michael, in response to your comments, i note a fatal flaw in this mother's love and caring for this seriously impaired son: denial. the denial of a problem is essentially a lock on the door to help for the problem. it's understandable that a parent doesn't want to admit to herself that her son is seriously impaired, even with the evidence almost daily before her eyes. it's quite another thing to push aside the realization that the problem is causing her child so much suffering, and that nothing she herself has tried has brought him any relief. this woman was educated and surely knowledgeable about psychiatric services; yet nowhere in any of the media accounts is there any indication that she sought a consultation for him. no psychological analysis can be valid without a full battery of psychiatric and psychological tests, as well as psychosocial assessment. there are psychological instruments that can ferret out violent tendencies. a check of family functioning and history can highlight impact on the vulnerabilities of the disturbed member. [this is not to be understood as blaming the family because what might be perfectly normal family functioning ordinarily might be toxic for the child.] once such thorough assessment has been completed there are options for treatment, including medication, in-patient or out-patient treatment, talking therapy, and more. there's no way to be sure now that all those dead children and adults would still be alive if adam's mother had taken that step, but there is that possibility.

laplane,

Recognizing that an emotionally impaired child is ill and need help is one thing.

Finding (and affording-not an issue in this case) appropiate psychiatric help is another

Getting the child to comply with help is yet another.

Diabetes is a very good physical illness analogy. I see a tremendous amount of severe disability caused by denial, poor access to physician andsupplies, but most of all-non-compliance. And there are a heck of a lot more physicians who can competently treat diabetes than there mental health professional who can deal effectively with the problems this kid had.

And then there's the kid himself. A lot of pediatric psychological issues manifest themselves in all their glory during puberty/adolescence. Sure he's going to hop in the car for a nice ride to see his shrink. When rhinos rhumba!

Stop blaming Mom. She's dead already. The only thing for which Nancy Lanza is clearly culpable is not having her firearms locked in a gun safe. And for all I know, she did and Adam surprised her when she was cleaning them. I don't know. Do you?

Do we know that the guns weren't locked up? I haven't read that, but there are so many articles that I don't read because it's too painful to think about.

california nurse, your comment is one of the few sane ones in this entire thread. So many people out there have opinions on mental illness and treatment and medications and yet have no experience or education in the matter--not even a little. You are so right about the onset of problems that may not have manifested themselves until later in life, like schizophrenia for example. His extreme aversion to social contact and his intelligence only would have made it that much harder to convince him to get help and at his age he was free to refuse such help. I don't blame the mom for anything, least of all for owning some guns--as a single woman in a rural area, I own guns too. I don't blame anyone for not recognizing he could be aggressive--he sounds like the least-aggressive person you could ever meet. How could anyone predict he would kill children? It's a mystery to me, and my only response to the event is sadness. There are millions of children and adults who play violent video games and watch violence in movies, online, etc. and don't go on to murder people. Violence is actually declining in our society, so there is no correlation there. I don't see any correlation between these types of events and gun ownership either, apart from the argument that these types of magazines make it possible to kill more people faster in a mass shooting. So much hysteria in comment threads that it's painful to read and realize how uneducated, paranoid, and gullible many Americans are.

I agree with California Nurse. There are many kinds of mental illnesses and not all are violent. However, getting the patient to comply and take the medication and/or therapy is not always easy. I've wondered if perhaps he was passive/aggressive....

She failed. Plain and simple... she is an example of what is to come if we don't start paying more attention to our kids...