So let me get this straight...
Momma is the one who taught him how to shoot (she was a big firearms enthusiast). And even after she saw that he was unstable, continued to take him shooting.
Momma initiates legal action to have him committed for being unstable and likely a danger... yet does absolutely nothing to secure here weapons where he cannot access them...
And she (along with 20 children and 6 school faculty) paid with their lives.
But it is still the GUN’s fault...
No - this is a case of irresponsibility. He tried to buy a gun but failed (Dick’s actually followed the law - though now they are halting sales of similar firearms, folding to the Marxists), but his mom was an accomplice to his acts.
It wasn’t Aspergers or “Autism Spectrum Disorder” that killed 27 people plus the perp. It was Adam Lanza who made the decision, and his mother who aided and abetted by failing to secure her weapons from her dangerous son.
they talk of mental care reform but do nothing of the destructin of lives.
nobody would hire him afterwards even if it was wrongful.
He was probably jealous of the kids.
there is no hope no where to turn.
Why do people jump off the golden gate bridge on the side facing the city but not the side facing nothing?
If he really was this dangerous, there are involuntary comitment for observation laws.
So a sane mind did it. Gotcha!
and his mother who aided and abetted by failing to secure her weapons from her dangerous son.
What you *think* doesn't make it fact. A sane person would have facts before they accuse the dead who can't defend themselves.
>> It wasnt Aspergers. It was Adam Lanza who made the decision, and his mother who aided and abetted by failing
More wrong than right in that statement.
Asperger’s is a psychiatric disorder. The kid was nuts.
To abet is to encourage a crime. Do you really think the mother intended this outcome?
No comment about the father?
“this is a case of irresponsibility. He tried to buy a gun but failed (Dick’s actually followed the law - though now they are halting sales of similar firearms, folding to the Marxists), but his mom was an accomplice to his acts.”
I believe that as more comes out, over time the pieces of the puzzle will come together which will reveal the mother’s judgment to be the “weak link” in this chain of events.
To wit:
- her training the boy in the handling of weapons, even when she knew he had serious developmental problems that could impair his judgment and motivations about the use of such weapons. She probably thought it would build up character and instill responsibility — in reality, it taught him the mechanics of operation that facilitated his eventual explosive behavior.
- her failure to act soon enough when she saw the boy’s condition deteriorating. She knew she was “losing him”, as she used those words to an acquaintance. But she postponed the inevitable. Understandable, considering she was his mother and no doubt cared for him, but still a mistake.
- her failure (once she realized he was growing worse) to remove him from access to her firearms (locking them up in the house wasn’t enough — she probably needed to get them off the premises completely).
I don’t think of her as an accomplice, but rather as a tragic [unwilling and unwitting] accessory.
Yet without the missteps of his mother, this would not have happened.