The scapegoating of Nancy Lanza

[VMI77]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... own-mother

It's a pretty said state of affairs when the supposed "news" media in the US is even worse than the media in the Socialist Utopia of England. Apparently, if you want to know the truth about anything, you have to look at individual blogs or media in other countries.

According to the script in progress, Nancy Lanza doesn't deserve our tears. Implicitly or explicitly, we blame Adam's mother for his baffling rampage – if only for keeping five weapons in her home, four of which her son appropriated. Echoing similar sentiments all over the web, one White House Twitter follower wrote of Nancy, "RIP, but she's culpable".

[Oldgringo]

She meant well and in so doing, paid with her life.

[Heartland Patriot]

I read somewhere, wish I had the link right now, that the mom kept her firearms locked in a gun cabinet of some sort. Her son either got the key or broke in. The responsibility still rests on HIM, the individual who planned and performed the vile deed. NO ONE ELSE is ultimately to blame; no one else pulled that trigger. Many people, who don't have a gun banner agenda, are understandably looking to pin this on someone because they cannot get retribution upon the individual responsible. I refuse to use his name, he doesn't deserve the "fame" that the mass media vultures have bestowed upon him.

[Oldgringo]

I read somewhere, wish I had the link right now, that the mom kept her firearms locked in a gun cabinet of some sort. Her son either got the key or broke in. The responsibility still rests on HIM, the individual who planned and performed the vile deed. NO ONE ELSE is ultimately to blame; no one else pulled that trigger. Many people, who don't have a gun banner agenda, are understandably looking to pin this on someone because they cannot get retribution upon the individual responsible. I refuse to use his name, he doesn't deserve the "fame" that the mass media vultures have bestowed upon him.

We are all solely responsible for our actions.

I also seem to recall that somewhere in the Bible, it is stated that the age of accountability is 12 or so? I'm okay with that, too.

[Moby]

One thing this terrible crime brought to my attention
was to review my own firearms security. The way I see it
(and this is my own thought I place on myself) is I am responsible
for most anything involving my firearms. Unless they pry the safe
out of my homes foundation and steal them, their under my control.

The second issue I take is the comment that the mentally challenged young man
had "appropriated" four firearms? How exactly did that happen?

The mother also took the same young man with mental health issues and purchased violent video games for him to play then took him to the range to "bond" with him.

In my opinion there were many bad decisions made by the mother. Because the son had mental health issues.
So I guess I am in the camp that blames the mother. That may not be popular, but that's how I see it.
If I had a child with mental issues....firearms would not be my bonding choice.

While I agree with personal responsibility for normal folks, add a mental illness to the equation and that opinion changes for me. I don't mean to be contriversial, but I see it as a parental responsibilty issue for a mentally challenged young man. I mean after all.....the thing that set him off was he was going to be committed.
That means NOT responsible enough to care for himself or make proper decisions.

So was it mom's fault? In my mind your darn right it was!!!

[mamabearCali]

This situation is not perfectly analogus. However if an electrician was working in my home and had gone a bit nuts. If he installed a camera without my knowledge and stalked me and watched me and learned how I carried my gun and how I kept my safe key. Then at the moment of his choosing hits me over the head, steals my gun, kills me, then steals my safe key and goes out to commit atrocities am I responsible for his actions?

I know I know......she was his mother and she should have been more careful.......but I doubt, even though she was trying to have him committed, that ever occurred to her he would kill her.....perhaps she thought by keeping the key on her person everything was safe. IMHO there is only one person at fault, the madman himself. That he stalked and killed his mother only makes his crime more incomprehensible and horrendous. Could the mother have made different choices, certainly, but she paid for her poor decision with her life.

In truth there are many contributing factors that permitted the atmosphere for this crime. However only one person chose to pull the trigger.

We are looking for justice and there is none to be had. We are looking for answers and there are none, save that evil exists in our world. We should weep with the broken hearted. Then we can look at contributing factors and see if any can be remedied. But IMO there is only one person who is to blame and he killed himself in a most cowardly fashion at th first sign of armed resistance.

[Stripes Dude]

One thing this terrible crime brought to my attention
was to review my own firearms security. The way I see it
(and this is my own thought I place on myself) is I am responsible
for most anything involving my firearms. Unless they pry the safe
out of my homes foundation and steal them, their under my control.

The second issue I take is the comment that the mentally challenged young man
had "appropriated" four firearms? How exactly did that happen?

The mother also took the same young man with mental health issues and purchased violent video games for him to play then took him to the range to "bond" with him.

In my opinion there were many bad decisions made by the mother. Because the son had mental health issues.
So I guess I am in the camp that blames the mother. That may not be popular, but that's how I see it.
If I had a child with mental issues....firearms would not be my bonding choice.

While I agree with personal responsibility for normal folks, add a mental illness to the equation and that opinion changes for me. I don't mean to be contriversial, but I see it as a parental responsibilty issue for a mentally challenged young man. I mean after all.....the thing that set him off was he was going to be committed.
That means NOT responsible enough to care for himself or make proper decisions.

So was it mom's fault? In my mind your darn right it was!!!

I agree. If we as firearm owners leave our guns unlocked, and a child finds them, we are liable. The sick and twisted individual who did this was as mentally vulnerable as a child, and his mother should have known better than to have a gun not secured in her house. Now in no way am I suggesting that I believe anything less than this individual will burn for eternity, but his mother, if she were still alive, would be facing both criminal and civil penalties.

Someone with a kid who shows severe social anxiety and isn't fit for "regular" school, shouldn't take him to the gun range, shouldn't keep firearms unless they are thoroughly secured, and shouldn't perpetuate his disorder with video games.

I can't help but believe that she wanted to attempt to raise him as if nothing was wrong. Too often in this society we pretend to lessen the pain of reality.

[Oldgringo]

{snip}
In truth there are many contributing factors that permitted the atmosphere for this crime. However only one person chose to pull the trigger.
{snip}

Anybody here old enough to remember Merle Haggard's song, "Momma Tried" or "I Never Picked Cotton" by Roy Clark? Look 'em up.

I agree with Cali. I hope y'all have better luck with your marriages and kids than did the late Nancy Lanza.
R.I.P., Nancy.

[sjfcontrol]

I agree. If we as firearm owners leave our guns unlocked, and a child finds them, we are liable. The sick and twisted individual who did this was as mentally vulnerable as a child, and his mother should have known better than to have a gun not secured in her house. Now in no way am I suggesting that I believe anything less than this individual will burn for eternity, but his mother, if she were still alive, would be facing both criminal and civil penalties.

Someone with a kid who shows severe social anxiety and isn't fit for "regular" school, shouldn't take him to the gun range, shouldn't keep firearms unless they are thoroughly secured, and shouldn't perpetuate his disorder with video games.

I can't help but believe that she wanted to attempt to raise him as if nothing was wrong. Too often in this society we pretend to lessen the pain of reality.

I don't think so...

Connecticut prohibits any person from storing a loaded firearm on his or her premises if he or she knows or reasonably should know that a minor (person under age 16) is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the minor’s parent or guardian.1 A person is not criminally liable for this prohibition if his or her firearm is securely locked in a box or other container in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or the person carries the firearm on his or her person or within such close proximity that he or she can readily retrieve and use it as if it were on his or her body.2 A person who violates this safe storage requirement shall be held strictly liable for damages when a minor obtains the unlawfully stored firearm and causes injury to or the death of any person.3

(Texas law states that a child is "a person younger than 17")

Adam was 20. So I don't believe the mother would be legally liable for allowing access to the firearms. That being said, it sure wasn't the smartest thing for her to do...

[Oldgringo]

I agree. If we as firearm owners leave our guns unlocked, and a child finds them, we are liable. The sick and twisted individual who did this was as mentally vulnerable as a child, and his mother should have known better than to have a gun not secured in her house. Now in no way am I suggesting that I believe anything less than this individual will burn for eternity, but his mother, if she were still alive, would be facing both criminal and civil penalties.

Someone with a kid who shows severe social anxiety and isn't fit for "regular" school, shouldn't take him to the gun range, shouldn't keep firearms unless they are thoroughly secured, and shouldn't perpetuate his disorder with video games.

I can't help but believe that she wanted to attempt to raise him as if nothing was wrong. Too often in this society we pretend to lessen the pain of reality.

I don't think so...

Connecticut prohibits any person from storing a loaded firearm on his or her premises if he or she knows or reasonably should know that a minor (person under age 16) is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the minor’s parent or guardian.1 A person is not criminally liable for this prohibition if his or her firearm is securely locked in a box or other container in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or the person carries the firearm on his or her person or within such close proximity that he or she can readily retrieve and use it as if it were on his or her body.2 A person who violates this safe storage requirement shall be held strictly liable for damages when a minor obtains the unlawfully stored firearm and causes injury to or the death of any person.3

(Texas law states that a child is "a person younger than 17")

Adam was 20. So I don't believe the mother would be legally liable for allowing access to the firearms. That being said, it sure wasn't the smartest thing for her to do...

The mother ain't liable for nothing. Her crackpot son murdered her.

I read somewhere today that the largest state mental hospital in CT was in Sandy Hook up until it was closed 40 years, or so, ago. Say it ain't so...please.

[hpcatx]

In my opinion there were many bad decisions made by the mother. Because the son had mental health issues.
So I guess I am in the camp that blames the mother. That may not be popular, but that's how I see it.
If I had a child with mental issues....firearms would not be my bonding choice.

I should preface my comments by saying that I have no personal experience with Asperger syndrome and my conjecture comes purely from what I have read. And this view may not be very popular...

I think it's difficult to suggest that the mother should not have interacted with her child in the described manner without more information about the assailant. Folks with Aspergers can lead lives with relatively normal activities and know right from wrong. (Sure, Aspergers causes socialization problems, but it's more than a mere lack of empathy that caused this kid to kill.) If he had a high capacity to function, why should his mother not engage in activities, such as playing video games and going to the range, which may be available without criticism for other mothers to bond with their children. If a child with Aspergers understands firearms safety, knows the law (and right from wrong), and is under the full supervision of his parents, should an outing to the range be off limits? I honestly don't know, but from reading about Aspergers it seems like the answer isn't always no.

Two caveats: First, if the mother was actually contemplating having him committed (just speculation on the media's part as far as I can tell) then, yes, she knew the situation warranted certain actions -- and those should have also included her refraining from bonding activities which might endanger others. Second, it sounds like the mother didn't properly secure her weapons, regardless of her child's mental impairment.

[packa45]

I had a childhood friend that had asperger syndrome he did take the "special education" classes in school because they(the school and his parents) felt he needed it. He was highly intelligent and very active in extracurricular activities ( baseball Boy Scouts, and was even appointed as an assistant trainer for our high school basketball and football teams) people that didn't know him assumed he was "retarded" or " slow" or a multitude of other words when in reality he was highly intelligent and was an amazing problem solver. He knew right from wrong. He did tend to "act out at times" but it was out of boredom and not being challenged.

Me and his other friends saw him and treated him no different than we treated each other. He went mountain climbing with us in New Mexico, white water rafting in Colorado, and participated in just about every merit badge class at summer camp including rifle shooting and shotgun shooting. He may have been an exception but on the range he was focused and determined to "do it the right way" and always had safety as priority #1 and was a pretty good shot too.

He was well on his way to graduating high school a year early and obtaining the rank of Eagle Scout when he suffered a grandmal seizure and was comatose for a week and a half before passing on. He helped teach me at a very young age to never judge a book by its cover and keep an open mind and live life to the fullest.

Now back on subject parents should not be held accountable for the actions of their adult children, this man may have needed to be committed for his own safety and safety of others... She may have known that and was attempting it... Did she make the weapons inaccessible to him (personally I do not know or care)... He killed her with what I am assuming was her "personal protection tool" and gained access to more tools that were used as weapons of assault and weapons of murder/suicide. The only person that I see needs to be blamed is him. He acted out and wanted to be a man but in reality he revealed himself to be a coward in more ways than one.

[Stripes Dude]

I agree. If we as firearm owners leave our guns unlocked, and a child finds them, we are liable. The sick and twisted individual who did this was as mentally vulnerable as a child, and his mother should have known better than to have a gun not secured in her house. Now in no way am I suggesting that I believe anything less than this individual will burn for eternity, but his mother, if she were still alive, would be facing both criminal and civil penalties.

Someone with a kid who shows severe social anxiety and isn't fit for "regular" school, shouldn't take him to the gun range, shouldn't keep firearms unless they are thoroughly secured, and shouldn't perpetuate his disorder with video games.

I can't help but believe that she wanted to attempt to raise him as if nothing was wrong. Too often in this society we pretend to lessen the pain of reality.

I don't think so...

Connecticut prohibits any person from storing a loaded firearm on his or her premises if he or she knows or reasonably should know that a minor (person under age 16) is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the minor’s parent or guardian.1 A person is not criminally liable for this prohibition if his or her firearm is securely locked in a box or other container in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or the person carries the firearm on his or her person or within such close proximity that he or she can readily retrieve and use it as if it were on his or her body.2 A person who violates this safe storage requirement shall be held strictly liable for damages when a minor obtains the unlawfully stored firearm and causes injury to or the death of any person.3

(Texas law states that a child is "a person younger than 17")

Adam was 20. So I don't believe the mother would be legally liable for allowing access to the firearms. That being said, it sure wasn't the smartest thing for her

I agree. If we as firearm owners leave our guns unlocked, and a child finds them, we are liable. The sick and twisted individual who did this was as mentally vulnerable as a child, and his mother should have known better than to have a gun not secured in her house. Now in no way am I suggesting that I believe anything less than this individual will burn for eternity, but his mother, if she were still alive, would be facing both criminal and civil penalties.

Someone with a kid who shows severe social anxiety and isn't fit for "regular" school, shouldn't take him to the gun range, shouldn't keep firearms unless they are thoroughly secured, and shouldn't perpetuate his disorder with video games.

I can't help but believe that she wanted to attempt to raise him as if nothing was wrong. Too often in this society we pretend to lessen the pain of reality.

I don't think so...

Connecticut prohibits any person from storing a loaded firearm on his or her premises if he or she knows or reasonably should know that a minor (person under age 16) is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the minor’s parent or guardian.1 A person is not criminally liable for this prohibition if his or her firearm is securely locked in a box or other container in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or the person carries the firearm on his or her person or within such close proximity that he or she can readily retrieve and use it as if it were on his or her body.2 A person who violates this safe storage requirement shall be held strictly liable for damages when a minor obtains the unlawfully stored firearm and causes injury to or the death of any person.3

(Texas law states that a child is "a person younger than 17")

Adam was 20. So I don't believe the mother would be legally liable for allowing access to the firearms. That being said, it sure wasn't the smartest thing for her to do...

The mother ain't liable for nothing. Her crackpot son murdered her.

I read somewhere today that the largest state mental hospital in CT was in Sandy Hook up until it was closed 40 years, or so, ago. Say it ain't so...please.

Ever hear of negligence?.....I understand your personal feelings, but having a firearm not secured around someone who is mentally deficient would lead to legal problems for the parent. She knew he wasn't all there, and didn't secure her guns. Negligence.....

[E.Marquez]

Ever hear of negligence?.....I understand your personal feelings, but having a firearm not secured around someone who is mentally deficient would lead to legal problems for the parent. She knew he wasn't all there, and didn't secure her guns. Negligence.....

^^^^ This is, must be part of the personal responsibility chain/ discussion...
Yes the shooter, through a mentally ill mind did the shooting,, and IS responsible, and may have found another set of tools to do what he did....had his mother not provided them to him.. but it appears, she did, and thus owns that part of the event in her death.

[The Annoyed Man]

Ever hear of negligence?.....I understand your personal feelings, but having a firearm not secured around someone who is mentally deficient would lead to legal problems for the parent. She knew he wasn't all there, and didn't secure her guns. Negligence.....

^^^^ This is, must be part of the personal responsibility chain/ discussion...
Yes the shooter, through a mentally ill mind did the shooting,, and IS responsible, and may have found another set of tools to do what he did....had his mother not provided them to him.. but it appears, she did, and thus owns that part of the event in her death.

....as well as the deaths of the others....

If I have firearms and ammunition in the house, and I have an emotionally unstable family member, and I do not take steps to keep those firearms locked up and inaccessible to anybody but me, then I own ALL the consequences if that unstable family member uses those firearms to commit mass murder—WHETHER OR NOT I AM AMONG THE VICTIMS. This does not excuse the unstable family member, who is EQUALLY responsible for their own actions. I understand not wanting to speak ill of the dead, but not if it requires telling fundamental untruths. She is a victim of both her own negligence AND her unstable son. The other people he killed are ALSO the victims of her own negligence and her unstable son. But her liability made it possible. He might have still tried it with a baseball bat or a knife, but to the extent that he used her guns, which not not under lock and key, she is responsible.

One can regret the great tragedy that resulted in her murder, and still be honest about her part in it. And the reason the honesty is necessary is because it is instructive to the rest of us. There is a difference between honest consideration of the facts, and cheap finger pointing. Denial merely serves to perpetuate the problem of having unsecured firearms in the home where an unstable family member will have unrestricted access to them. This is as much a personal responsibility issue as it is a crime issue or a 2nd Amendment issue. In allowing unrestricted access to firearms to an unstable family member whom we learn after the fact that she had concerns about and was considering institutionalizing is in itself an abdication of firearms responsibility. This leads unavoidably to the conclusion that she shares responsibility along with her son for the killings. That she is not here to defend herself sucks, but the facts are what they are, and denial serves nobody but the devil.