Possible Motive Emerges In The Connecticut Shooting

[Something completely different]

I will wait for the police investigation to reach it`s conclusion, instead of making unprofessional assumptions.

[Minimalist]

That was a terrible article summer. I read it the other day; it's despicable...effectively lumping all children with mental health issues into the same camp as people who commit these atrocities. No, the writer of that article is not Adam Lamza's mother; she is not Dylan Klebold or Eric Harris' mother either. She is the mother of a mentally ill son, and should not make the massive assumptions she is making about him.

Um...

A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books.

This kid is a ticking bomb, Tibs. He's 13. What will he be like when he's 18 or 20?

Even if the family got a PINS ( Person in Need of Supervision) Petition approved by a family court it would terminate when he was 18. Then what? I'll save you the trouble. There is no answer.

There is probably a natural human tendency for a parent to try to shrug off the behavior of an abusive child but the author of this piece is not one of them. She is confronting the reality of her own kid and that takes some guts.

[Shell B]

It's not that she should shrug it off, Min. It is that she should respect her own child enough not to post that she thinks he is definitely going to wind up a mass murderer for the entire fucking world to see. As I mentioned, read her blog and you will see precisely why he behaves the way he does. She's a despicable parent.

[A Theist]

It's not that she should shrug it off, Min. It is that she should respect her own child enough not to post that she thinks he is definitely going to wind up a mass murderer for the entire fucking world to see. As I mentioned, read her blog and you will see precisely why he behaves the way he does. She's a despicable parent.

"As I mentioned, read her blog and you will see precisely why he behaves the way he does. She's a despicable parent."....and if mental disorders are genetically passed from parent to child, it's obvious who the poor kid gets it from...and the mother isn't helping her son by publicly comparing him to mass murderers....I agree. She's a despicable parent who seems to have mental issues of her own.

[Minimalist]

I'll bet a kid like that could drive anyone crazy. She's felt concerned enough to teach other two kids to run and lock themselves in a car.
She sounds pretty desperate to me.

But this kid is not in the Adam Lanza/Jared Loughner class of adult schizophrenia. He seems more like a budding Ted Bundy-class sociopath.



Meanwhile,

Both sides of this debate interpret the Constitution like the freaking Christians interpret the Bible.

I'll bet you the strict constructionists would not want to limit the 2d Amendment to muzzle-loaders, Shel, as the "Founding Fathers" intended. Hell, they've already gotten their nazi pals on the supreme court to overlook the "well-regulated militia" part of it. Strict construction...like beauty...seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

Frankly, in that case, I think they are largely full of shit.

[Lion IRC]

All I can say is Wow!....unbelievable that a parent could do that to their own child...you know, maybe it's that mother who should be evaluated for a mental illness...no wonder that poor kid has issues....and no telling what that mother maybe creating in her own son...I have to agree Tib, it's despicable!...

I think the agent/mechanism (people/guns) argument goes right to the heart of the problem. Social pathology writ large.

Its about PEOPLE. Drug affected people, greedy people, mentally unstable people, people desensitized to violence and hate and yes, I'm going to say it - people who are abused as children because of the increasing dysfunction of family life.

Was there ever a time when America was in more need of an evaluation of its moral compass?

Child trauma victims need a strong and loving protective family environment to help them through events like these. Sadly, the perpetrator of this tragedy himself lacked such support.

[Shell B]

I'll bet a kid like that could drive anyone crazy. She's felt concerned enough to teach other two kids to run and lock themselves in a car.
She sounds pretty desperate to me.

But, why is he behaving like that? In another one of her blog posts, she bitches that she should have never had children because her eldest son does not clean his room. That's another child that she is outing for the whole world. She also had a loose tire and wrote on her blog that she believes her ex-husband was trying to hurt them. Yet, he is trying to get the older kids. He could be an ass, but she should certainly not be blogging about it. The drama that she and her husband perpetrate around their children very well could be the culprit of this child's theatrics. I am torn as to whether he is mentally ill or learning to seek attention the same way his parents do.

But this kid is not in the Adam Lanza/Jared Loughner class of adult schizophrenia. He seems more like a budding Ted Bundy-class sociopath.

Well, armchair experts abound, but the reality is that this behavior is far more prevalent than serial and mass killing. That tells me that the large majority of these children do not go on to commit serious crimes. In turn, that tells me that this poor kids mother is projecting a future that is far from uncertain. She should shut her fucking pie hole and try locking up the knives or take a break from griping about her ex and spend that time at therapy instead of dragging her kid to an asylum because he *said* something. If my parents took me to the hospital every time I said I was going to hurt myself, I would have been like that kid -- drugged up and traumatized needlessly.

Both sides of this debate interpret the Constitution like the freaking Christians interpret the Bible.

I'll bet you the strict constructionists would not want to limit the 2d Amendment to muzzle-loaders, Shel, as the "Founding Fathers" intended. Hell, they've already gotten their nazi pals on the supreme court to overlook the "well-regulated militia" part of it. Strict construction...like beauty...seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

Frankly, in that case, I think they are largely full of shit.
[/quote]

How do you know the founding fathers intended that? That is what I want to know. If that is just not your interpretation, why is it not part of the amendment?

[Minimalist]

But, why is he behaving like that?

Because he is fucking nuts. You know, I have to laugh. Whenever something happens someone always says "where are the parents?" Well here is a parent sounding the alarm and everyone wants to jump down her throat for being a lousy mother.

Make up your fucking minds people.


The 2d Amendment was written in 1789 with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
At that time there were only single shot muzzle loading weapons. The most dangerous weapon we had was a 12-lb artillery piece. Please don't try to tell me that the FF mystically envisioned the Industrial Revolution and tanks, planes and M-16s.

In case you forgot - the full text of the amendment is

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As late as 1939 the Supreme Court ruled in Miller v United States that there was no constitutional right to own a sawed-off shotgun because it had no 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'"

This stood until 2008 when the Supreme Court's 5 myopic old fucks decided that "well-regulated militia" meant nothing. Looking at this list of names I can't help but wonder if they weren't more interested in the profit margins of the death merchants than the safety of Americans.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...
Was there ever a time when America was in more need of an evaluation of its moral compass?
...

something something....slavery...something something...segregation...something something...interment camps...

[Lion IRC]

I will wait for the police investigation to reach it`s conclusion, instead of making unprofessional assumptions.

Me too.

And while I'm waiting, how about a bit of good old-fashioned water cooler chat between a few concerned humans who communicate via the internet?

Thats what youre doing in real life isnt it?

Imagine if I told my wife... nope, sorry. I dont want to discuss it with you until I get more facts from the police and authorities.

A guy over at Reasonable Faith Forum was saying - lets not get into any heavy social/political discussion about it - it's too tragic, we dont have all the facts, these are peoples children, dont use this as the basis of a...call to action, pro/anti, I told you so, type argument.

It seems to me that we already have the facts. And that we OUGHT to be discussing it precisely because they ARE someones children.