Nancy Lanza

[mudwhistle]

Nancy Lanza loved her son. She didn't want to admit that there was something wrong with him. That's why she took him shooting. He was to be treated at all times as the normal boy she saw. Every time a parent takes their disturbed child to school and demands that they be mainstreamed a parent makes the same mistakes as Nancy Lanza. That's why these parents cannot be permitted to make these decisions. They make them emotionally. They think that the presence of a disturbed child in a class of normal children enriches the whole class. Having a child prone to violent outbursts in an ordinary classroom is inclusive. There are acres of books written about how mainstreaming retarded and violent children is a benefit to the normal class. No doubt Nancy Lanza believed them, until it got out of hand. We don't know what she thought, but since she took Adam out of school, she likely blamed the school for not understanding her son enough. They weren't accommodating enough. All she had to do to protect her child was get him away from all these people who didn't understand him.

Nancy Lanza paid the price for loving her son so much. She's dead. It's not enough. Adam Lanza had a father and a brother who both knew how disturbed Lanza was. They refused to have anything to do with him. They should have been able to do more once they recognized how bad off the boy was.

I'm not sure what the real story of this kid was.

He was said to have given a speech on a PC to his classmates because he didn't want to talk in front of them.

They say he was able to take apart and put together a hard-drive in little or no time.

He was supposedly a genius. He was more like a Howard Hughes than a troubled child. Sort of like a darker version of Tony Stark. Somebody his mother felt if she could get him to have some direction in his life he would be another Bill Gates.

Guess not.

 

[skye]

Had Mrs Lanza noticed that her son had homicidal tendencies or some sentiment approaching that, then she was guilty in an indirect manner, making certain that guns were not available to him.

Otherwise she certainly cannot be considered guilty of anything.

 

[Zoom]

Gun nut, survivalist and probably Fox fan.

There is trouble written all over that.

 

[freedombecki]

Gun nut, survivalist and probably Fox fan.

There is trouble written all over that.

While you're spinning with a highlighting pen, I'm sure you'll find something that will cause America to think this is a politicized issue, when it is actually a mass criminal shooting by a very sick man.

We really don't know what will be decided, since the principal perpetrator is dead, and he shot the person most likely to communicate his thinking that day, unless she was similarly disabled, which we may never know unless her ex has told the police details showing that she was psychologically problematic.

I pray for those family, friends, and classmates who cared about the children who were senselessly killed and are diminished by their loss.

 

[saveliberty]

Ms. Lanza over estimated her abilities to cope and under estimated her son's capacity to lash out.

 

[wavingrl]

Ms. Lanza over estimated her abilities to cope and under estimated her son's capacity to lash out.

I hadn't heard she was psychologically problematic.

What it must be like to be a mental health professional and try to find ways to manage such problems.

Sound of Music is on--glad I grew up in that era and knew nothing of this side of life.

 

[mudwhistle]

Gun nut, survivalist and probably Fox fan.

There is trouble written all over that.

You'd shit if she watched MSNBC religiously.

Probably more likely because she lived in an extremely liberal state.

 

[saveliberty]

Ms. Lanza over estimated her abilities to cope and under estimated her son's capacity to lash out.

I hadn't heard she was psychologically problematic.

What it must be like to be a mental health professional and try to find ways to manage such problems.

Sound of Music is on--glad I grew up in that era and knew nothing of this side of life.

I didn't suggest she was.

 

[wavingrl]

Ms. Lanza over estimated her abilities to cope and under estimated her son's capacity to lash out.

I hadn't heard she was psychologically problematic.

What it must be like to be a mental health professional and try to find ways to manage such problems.

Sound of Music is on--glad I grew up in that era and knew nothing of this side of life.

I didn't suggest she was.

someone else did--i didn't use the quote function.

That assessment was attributed to her exhusband.

And who knows if that is actually, 'what he said.'

In a Lifetime movie the stereotypical mother would be a Joan Crawford/no more wire hangers type.

Ultimately the responsibility for special needs children falls upon the family, usually the mother. It's possible that took a toll on this woman.

In another thread I learned CN has some of the strictest laws on mental health--and they plan to reconsider this--as will others. What more can be done I don't know.

 

[jwoodie]

Very interesting posts, for the most part. (Just ignore the rabble rousers.) I hope this leads to a serious discussion mental illness in all of its expressions, including violence, homelessness and drug addiction. Debating solutions without understanding the problem is unproductive and ineffectual.

 

[Zoom]

Gun nut, survivalist and probably Fox fan.

There is trouble written all over that.

While you're spinning with a highlighting pen, I'm sure you'll find something that will cause America to think this is a politicized issue, when it is actually a mass criminal shooting by a very sick man.

We really don't know what will be decided, since the principal perpetrator is dead, and he shot the person most likely to communicate his thinking that day, unless she was similarly disabled, which we may never know unless her ex has told the police details showing that she was psychologically problematic.

I pray for those family, friends, and classmates who cared about the children who were senselessly killed and are diminished by their loss.

Survivalist, gun nut and probably fox fan. She had trouble written all over it.

 

[Connery]

Upon further consideration, Ms. Lanza did contribute to her son's problems. She home schooled him when she should have sought the help of professionals and a school that deals with his alleged mental and emotional situation. Ms. Lanza simply was not trained, even if she were, the magnitude of the problems that the killer son had were far too much for her to handle. This situation could have been avoided if the mother sought and received the proper help.

 

[Zoom]

Gun nut, survivalist and probably Fox fan.

There is trouble written all over that.

You'd shit if she watched MSNBC religiously.

Probably more likely because she lived in an extremely liberal state.

Honest question. A survivalist and gun nut is a liberal? Serious question. Just once be honest.

 

[PaulS1950]

We have no idea of the precautions that were taken to keep the guns secure.
We have every indication that mom was fine. She interacted with the locals and had no problems with law enforcement. She was able to buy guns and join a shooting range - all things that point to a responsible adult.
I know that when I was 20 (its been 42 years) You could not have kept something secure if I wanted it. This man (over 18 is an adult) who first killed his mother and then 27 other people including himself was extremely bright. No doubt he could have found the keys to any lock - or, like me, learn to pick the locks - and gotten the guns even if they had been in a gun safe.
I see no need to blame mom for the actions of a grown young man.
I see no need to blame a disturbed (assumption on my part, there is no real concrete evidence only hearsay) young man for being ill beyong his capacity to deal with it.
I am sorry that even one person had to die but I don't think that the fact that twenty-six were killed makes it worse. It would still have been a trajedy if there had been an armed guard in place and only the perp was shot.
This incident isn't about controlling guns, people or even keeping our kids safe from harm; its about the failure of a health care system to actually work with parents and patients to treat and monitor those who are too ill to care for themselves.
Crime cannot be prevented. You can't arrest someone because they might do something wrong. You have to prosecute the criminal after the fact - after the law has been broken.
If crime could be prevented we would not be able to get drivers licenses (we are likely to break the law and speed or drink and drive), we wouldn't be able to buy guns because we might (the odds are less than 1 in 10000000) shoot an innocent person; we wouldn't be able to have knives, baseball bats, pipe, rubber tubing or anything that might be able to injure someone - including ourselves. We couldn't even walk along the sidewalk because we might jay-walk or spit or make leud gestures.
Crimes are going to happen, all we can do is be sure to prosecute the criminal to the fullest extent of the law. After that we need a program in place that changes the mindset of the criminal to be a productive member of society and if that is not possible then we need to keep them away from society, keep them from hurting themselves and others. That may simply not be possible.
I don't have "the" answer but I do know that disarming all law abiding citizens or removing any single type or group of weapons is a meaningless gesture that enables the criminal. I know that having "gun free" zones also empowers criminals because it removes the chance that they may be stopped before they can complete their task.
Do I want to arm everyone? NO! Do I want to disarm everyone? NO! Would I like to live in a place where there was no violence? YES! but such a place does not exist. It would require perfect people in a perfect world and we have a lot of evolution to cover before that will be possible. We need to accept that crime will happen and that we can only respond to it when it does. We have laws against people who are legally defined as mentally ill owning, possessing or controlling firearms of any kind. We have the same laws in place for felons and those with violent behaviors. We have registration and waiting periods and we have restrictions on the most dangerous of weapons but criminals still get them - they don't follow the laws - that is what makes them criminals. More laws will not stop criminals any more than reducing speed limits will prevent speeding. Removing all guns from the world would not stop gun crime - it takes about a half hour to make a working shotgun and it would not need shells or loaded ammo it would use propellant that can be made with household chemicals and shoot rocks, coins or marbles. You can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. You should not throw out the ability of someone to defend themselves against crime in the attempt to prevent it.
The AR-15 or other semi-auto weapons are used in match competitions and for sport shooting more often than they are used in crimes. They have been affectively used for protection against rioters and looters. They are used to control pests in rural areas. They are not "bad" guns. Sometimes bad people use guns in a bad way but we need to focus on the people - not the guns. In all my 62 years I have never seen a gun jump off the shelf and shoot someone - or even just fire itself. There is always a person making the gun shoot.

 

[wavingrl]

Gun nut, survivalist and probably Fox fan.

There is trouble written all over that.

You'd shit if she watched MSNBC religiously.

Probably more likely because she lived in an extremely liberal state.

Honest question. A survivalist and gun nut is a liberal? Serious question. Just once be honest.

yes, it's true. 'The Humanists'--the founders had heard of those beliefs and many others. The individual, belief in a Higher Power and the strengths and weaknesses of government.

'Someone', not me, should put together a documentary on the evolution of US politics. jmo.