Posted on 12/15/2012 12:54:40 PM PST by BunnySlippers
Only if they are psychologically unstable.
You miss my point. The dad is derelict in his duty to his family and should have stayed to help
Here we go. Nancy Lanza had it coming to her. From the Old Grey Whore.
Many serious mental illnesses don’t appear until late puberty to early 20s so depending on when she taught her children he may not have had any signs of mental illness at the time. We also do not really know if she taught this particular son or not. It is not like we can depend on the media to be accurate, they are more concerned with sensationalism than facts.
Exactly, we don’t know that he had free access; that may be why he killed her, to access the firearms.
He tried to buy a gun only a week or so ago, so maybe he didn’t have ready access to the guns.
Exactly. It could be he was on some meds that could be a factor.
I don’t follow how this is bad at all.
The part where he shot a bunch of 6-year olds. That's where things went bad.
One has to question mom training her psychiatrically ill son how to shoot and giving him free access to her gun collection. Flame away, but I sense something was a little off about this mother.
Training him to shoot , I have no problem with. Free access to guns for a kid who was supposedly a known nutcase, big problem
BS. Many of these “nutted up” people would do well in a properly supervised shooting education setting. Not enough facts out yet, but Mom may not have been on even footing mentally either. Be careful about jumping to conclusions on this. Yesterday she was a teacher and his older brother was the shooter
it all boils down to a person’s intent.
i remember seeing the shooting range video of the mom shooting her son from behind and then herself before anyone knew what happened.
don’t project criminals’ intent onto hundreds of millions of law abiding gun owners. that’s real idiocy.
it all boils down to a person’s intent.
i remember seeing the shooting range video of the mom shooting her son from behind and then herself before anyone knew what happened.
don’t project criminals’ intent onto hundreds of millions of law abiding gun owners. that’s real idiocy.
“She had to know he had some ‘issues’...”
Give it time for some facts to trickle out. Mom may have had some issues of her own. The news media did a great job of rushing to publish a lot of total fabrications on Friday. There have been a few discredited on Saturday. Many more to come probably. They had about 30 seconds worth of facts to fill in their 24 hour news and basically filled in the blanks with BS
“Hate to say this, but if it were me, and my son was a bit of a problem, then I wouldn’t have guns in the house.”
If it comes down to that decision, the son wouldn’t be in the house
“notice how the times had a cute photo of him?”
Yeah he’s getting the Trayvon treatment. His older brother didn’t get the same though
As I have commented on FR earlier about this, I think your thought here may well be a key causative factor. I wish we knew what his prescription drug history was, before ascribing theories to original sin, or an evil personality, or modern education, or mother, or father, or whatever. From drug effects on PTSD veterans (statistically):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2878100/posts
"An April 10 policy memo that the Army Medical Command released regarding the diagnosis and treatment of PTSD said a class of drugs known as benzodiazepines, which include Xanax and Valium, could intensify rather than reduce combat stress symptoms and lead to addiction.
The memo, signed by Herbert Coley, civilian chief of staff of the Army Medical Command, also cautioned service clinicians against prescribing second-generation antipsychotic drugs, such as Seroquel and Risperidone, to combat PTSD.
In a June 2010 report, the Defense Department's Pharmacoeconomic Center said 213,972, or 20 percent of the 1.1 million active-duty troops surveyed, were taking some form of psychotropic drug -- antidepressants, antipsychotics, sedative hypnotics or other controlled substances." ...
"The Army's new PTSD policy makes it clear that the risk of treating combat stress with benzodiazepines outweighs the rewards: "Benzodiazepine use should be considered relatively contraindicated in combat veterans with PTSD because of the high co-morbidity of combat-related PTSD with alcohol misuse and substance use disorders (up to 50 percent co-morbidity)
Bostwick wrote "benzodiazepine administration fails to prevent PTSD and may increase its incidence."
Morbidity here means death by suicide, as I read the article again. I wonder if by any means Adam Lanza might have been taking one of these supposedly 'psychotropic' drugs.
“its inexcusable that all of those weapons were available to the killer son.”
I’ll take the word “all” and replace it with “any” and agree with you. Nothing wrong with being a gun enthusiast, but one must be a responsible gun enthusiast
I really hope the people that write this crap burn in hell . . . soon.
Unfortunately, your comment here does not reflect the tone of this article, which seems to be well-balanced -- not eulogizing or taking an anti-gun stance. The article contains data that may perhaps not be given elsewhere.
The authors of this piece deserve your apology, IMHO.
I can guarantee you that won't happen.
“I go target practicing with my son and 14 yr old grandson; I consider it fun family time. Is there anything wrong with that?”
Not yet. Stay vigilant and keep your powder dry
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.