Did paranoid, gun-crazed mother trigger son's school killing spree? Friends say she believed world

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Dragoon01
We do not build our society around the possible actions of madmen.


Actually, this is incorrect. Most laws, rules, etc are not for the majority, its for the few minority.
Most people won't murder in a civil society...some will, which means laws and punishment must be implemented..not because without them, everyone would go nuts and murder each other..but because sometimes someone will go off the range and do that, and we have created a structure to know how to deal with this craziness when it happens.

the "honor system" only effects the people with honor...not everyone, as not everyone has honor. Most do, many don't.


You did not get the intent there but you proved the point.
Yes our laws are ment to punish those that infringe on the life liberty or property of another.
We do not write our laws and rules to punish the entire society because someone infringed on another.
Removing or restricting tools objects or substances because madmen abuse them is punishing the whole of society for the actions of a few.
Civil societys enact punishment on those who have infringed not the society as a whole.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I don't trust this news source. I was reading a different article by them earlier this morning where they were saying Aspergers was a condition related to sociopathy, which it is nothing like. Sociopathy is linked to violence; Aspergers is not. They have NOTHING to do with each other, yet the Daily Mail said they did. They also suck at reporting sources. They are only a step or two above a tabloid.
None of the papers have good sources, really. A babysitter from a decade ago? (Who looks older than 25, I might add.) Then there was Alex Israel, who went to school with Adam Lanza when they were little kids. I watched an interview with her where she talked about how Nancy Lanza was an elementary school teacher, which shows how much she is full of crap. I will believe people who have actually known the Lanzas less than a decade ago, if any such people step forward. So far, all the sources are people not close, like the gardener, and people Nancy Lanza talked to at the bar, or family that lived in other states, or kids who went to school with Adam, but weren't actually his friend. Those people are more likely to be people looking for their 15 minutes of fame.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Interesting article OP, could the Moms worldview impacted her son? Of course it could, it would impact a normal child, let alone an introverted one with numerous social issues. The rational behind his attack will never really be known, we can only try and fit the pieces together and come up with a picture. Nobody will like the picture once it is complete but it will be as close to the truth as we can manage.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Speculating over the mother is kind of tough right now, as the investigation is still ongoing. Apparently, they (police) have gleaned a lot of information from his mothers house, computers and other evidence left behind. Certainly, if she felt all was lost and told her son so, it could have influenced him. We may never know this.

I will confess that I have a hobby of collecting news articles and photos that may have something to do with the "end times" based on Biblical stuff. Its a hobby and it started bothering my son. I explained to him that to us (my generation), everything is coming true. To him, all of that stuff is just normal. I said don't worry about it, get married have kids etc. His healthy mind is fine. However, I can see how a young schizophrenic, Asperger, or undefined illness kid might react very negatively.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I'm guessing she had enough and he had get out of the basement and get a job after the first of the year. A couple of people at work have had it with their kids not wanting to contribute.4 year degrees and miss job interviews because mom didn't wake them.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Initial reports are often incorrect. This is one of those reports. There was a lone gunman. Adam Lanza and no one else.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


What part of assualt is in question for you? No one needs an automatic rifle for any reason. If you want home protection a 38 is just the right size for your night stand. You're a hunter? Any regular old rifle will do. Or do you seek to take the sport out of it? Its not enough that you disguise yourself as a tree and have a birds eye view of the terrain you need a high powered rifle too. the advantage to man in this situation is astounding.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61560
 


That is exactly the same argument people make for wealth redistribution and salary caps. "No one needs more than a million dollars a year to live off of, so anything above that should be taken away from them".

"No one needs an automatic rifle". Do you know or understand that the word automatic does not mean assault rifle or machine gun? There are automatic pistols, automatic shotguns, and automatic rifles that have no relation to Assault Rifle platforms. What makes it automatic is the fact that you don't have to pull a lever, rack a slide, or cock a hammer. To say no one needs an automatic rifle is illogical and unreasonable. I think what you mean is no one needs an assault rifle.

You don't "need" a car, air conditioning, a house, a job, a hair cut, or a cell phone.

After rereading your post, it is clear you really don't know what you are talking about Karen. I suggest you figure it out before you start arguments over it.
edit on 12/18/2012 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01

You did not get the intent there but you proved the point.
Yes our laws are ment to punish those that infringe on the life liberty or property of another.
We do not write our laws and rules to punish the entire society because someone infringed on another.
Removing or restricting tools objects or substances because madmen abuse them is punishing the whole of society for the actions of a few.
Civil societys enact punishment on those who have infringed not the society as a whole.

Thats perspective though.
Lets take a random example..fireworks. There are laws on books to not sell above a certain gunpowder ratio. Meaning generally speaking those quarter sticks are illegal.
This is because some people abused em..therefore everyone suffers, even if you are responsible...because a few wayward types decided to destroy it for the majority.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Your right and those laws are stupid and a violation of my rights as well.

Laws are supposed to punish those who violate the rights of others (life, liberty or property). Simple possession of objects is not in and of itself a violation of other peoples life liberty or property.

Possesion of objects does imply a responsibility and laws that hold people accountable for the use of those objects are perfectly consistant with the natural rights principles. So in your example if I were to obtain 100 pounds of explosives and store them in my basement (perfectly legal BTW in the form of blackpowder) I have a responsibility to store that in a proper way. If it explodes and damages homes near me or even kills someone then I would be held accountable for that.

The goal is to make sure that the fines or punishment for irresponsible behavior or actions are sufficent enough to cause people to pause and think even if normal thoughts and considerations for others do not.
The current legal paradigm is however to hold lawfull and responsible people accountable for the actions of idiots and madmen.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
From the Daily Mail:

Nancy was believed to have been planning a new life with her 20-year-old son Adam as he made plans to go to college. She had been thinking about going wherever he decided to study engineering - Seattle or one of the Carolinas - and live nearby, according to the New York Post.

Russ Hanoman told the Post: 'They had recently gone to many different colleges looking for the right program for Adam, and the right living situation.'


But the reason I am posting is because I can't create a new thread.

To those who still have their innocence

The world is supposed to end in two days. So let's keep this short.

The reason for the two worst massacres in the United States this year is because people within the established system, including the wealthy and middle class, were not willing to support working less as the solution to unemployment.
www.thepetitionsite.com...

How does killing children help to convince people to work less, you ask? The answer can be found within the President's speech after the Sandy Hook shooting: he says that we should have sympathy for the parents of the survivors because "they know that their children’s innocence has been torn away from them too early." Too many adults think that nothing can change, and so we shouldn't even try. And so children and adults continue to die senselessly, both in the US and in other countries as a result of war and starvation.

Five days before the Sandy Hook shooting, this was posted on the OWS site, explaining why James Holmes has not described the reason for his attack in Aurora:
www.occupywallst.org...
(As well as here: www.usmessageboard.com...)

Three days later, Adam Lanza attempted to purchase a rifle from a sporting goods store. Since he destroyed his computer hard drive before the attack it is unlikely the authorities would have discovered his motives on their own. Anyone who does not support working less as the solution to unemployment is accepting the fact that more children will be killed, maybe their own children, but that isn't even important because we could prevent that simply by banning private gun ownership as other countries do.

This doesn't mean we are immoral. It just means that our morality is one where we value our lives as little as we do those of other people, and that trying to kill anyone who does not support an end to these problems is a moral thing to do.

We don't need to accept this situation. Obviously, mainstream media outlets are not going to carry something like this, so don't be surprised if where you read it is not a site you normally visit. The apathy of adults towards this solution is a direct cause of people you care about possibly being killed, or even people you don't know.

We can't control what people do. But we can make sure they have the information necessary to make proper decisions.


The rest is up to you.
edit on 20-12-2012 by Misaki because: Addition of paragraph



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Many on here have predicted that this is exactly what they would say about her. Oh and she is dead and cannot defend herself.


It's not really a prediction as such. Just logical thinking.

TPTB never let a good crisis go to waste. She was a survivalist. TPTB don't like survivalists...





new topics
 
19
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join