Sandy Hook

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

Parents are so much more important than any other factor.

Nancy Lanza was fully involved in helping Adam. Problem was inactive attempts to address his problem. Even money does not appear to be a deciding issue. Problem was knowledge. Adam Lanza apparently had problems detected at the age of three. But the 'powers that be' did not associate or fully understand what that problem (symptom) meant.

Only institution that appears to have identified his problem and potential solutions was the Yale Child Study Center. Even their recommendations for meds was all but ignored. In part because Nancy Lanza was trying to adapt the world to Adam rather than fix Adam so he could adapt to the world. The report suggests a more confrontational approach was necessary.

'Powers that be' in that school system did not even include Yale's analysis and recommendations in their files. Despite numerous conversations. It is not stated why. But that school officials did not understand what Yale was recommending might be a possible explaination.

In desperation, Nancy Lanza tried home schooling. In desperation, Adam was later reintegrated into tenth grade. This was done with extensive effort by all including Nancy Lanza, teachers, and other school professionals. Again, it is not for lack of money or for trying. The system did not really understand his problem AND - this is most important - used a defective strategic objective.

Once Adam left school, then all desperately needed support evaporated. His degradation appears to have been greatest between 18 and 20 years old. By this point, he even rejected all attempt by his father to contact him.

This report takes great effort to note its does not cast blame on anyone. It cites the many technical reasons why Adam was where he was. It also says "why Adam did what he did" is completely unknown. We know how he got where he was. We have nothing but speculation as to why he did what he did.

One final point from the report are facts proven by research: "The conclusion that access to guns drives shooting episodes far more than the presence of mental illness is inescapable. Those countries that have tight gun controls in general experience less overall gun violence and have fewer episodes per capita of mass shootings. ...
We also know the period during which a shooter must reload provides an opportunity for others to stop the shooter or to escape. ... The smaller the capacity of the clip, the more reloading episodes there will be, and the greatest the opportunity for escape or rescue by law enforcement."

That is not just common sense. That is well documented by research.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by tw

Nancy Lanza was fully involved in helping Adam.

She allowed him to isolate himself in his room (he didn't leave for the last three months he was alive except to commit the shooting,) she allowed him to refuse to eat (he was anorexic and weighed 110 pounds at his death,) and she gave him access to guns. I'm sorry, but those are not the actions of a fully involved parent. Experienced parents of mentally ill children have locks on the knives in the kitchen, and guns are completely out of the question. Honestly I suspect Nancy Lanza had mental issues of her own, because nothing else makes any sense.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Experienced parents of mentally ill children have locks on the knives in the kitchen, and guns are completely out of the question.

This. Speaking from experience.

[sexobon]

Nancy Lanza created a monster and got what she bargained for. It's a tragedy there was collateral damage from her experiments.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Nancy Lanza created a monster and got what she bargained for.

Nancy Lanza was doing what most of us do.

In a parallel example, many switch on a light bulb; see it fail. Then conclude power cycling a bulb causes failure. Power cycling incandescent bulbs does nothing to cause failure. Conclusion is a classic example of junk science created by using observation.

Nancy Lanza was doing same. Solutions such as meds and pushing Adam into school would increase his symptoms, anxiety, and other autistic and complusive behavior. She was doing what diminished his anguish. She was using observation to make conclusions.

Yale Child Study Group strongly encouraged treatment that would make Adam's symptoms become worse. They strongly encouraged doing things that Adam refused to do. That is the point. They wanted to address his problem. Others were only trying to cure his symptoms by making conclusions only from observation. They tried to get him through school - to minimize his pain and anxiety.

So many do this. For example, how many know an SUV is safer only because its four wheel drive can get the vehicle unstuck. SUVs are some of the most dangerous vehicles especially in slippery weather. But a conclusion only based in observation says otherwise.

How many know throwing more people in jail will reduce crime? Facts say otherwise – especially since most (one in 100 Americans) in jail are there for drug offenses such as marijuana.

How many just knew Saddam was evil. And that proved he was a threat to America.

How many foolishly put more fans into their computer on a myth about excessive heat? They feel it is hot. That proves heat must be bad? No. Heat only causes defective semiconductors to fail. Heat is only how to find defective hardware; does not create defective hardware. But most know otherwise because a conclusion was based in observation.

Nancy Lanza was doing same. She was only doing what most of us do. She was trying to address only what she observed. Her support (ie community psychiatrist) was simply facilitating that misguided direction.

Report say it does not cast blame on anyone. Sandy Hook was due to a much larger problem. A perfect storm created by many factors. The many we should all learn from by not making conclusions from sound byte logic.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

Nancy Lanza was doing what most of us do. ...

... She was only doing what most of us do. ...

You make this statement and then you repeat it even after Clod and Ortho have already refuted it.

No. Most of us don't advocate training mentally impaired people in the use of deadly weapons; or, give them access to guns.

The scope of the report was deliberately limited so as to not cast blame. That's because under the circumstances of this case, it might be counterproductive to do that as it might discourage people from participating in future cases like it. That can't be extrapolated to hold Nancy Lanza, who was the ultimate authority on actions affecting her son, harmless from the ramifications of those actions just so that YOU could put the blame on guns (since you were able to find a report designed to not blame any people). You're trying to redirect this mental health issue in support of another agenda ... gun control ... and diminishing the actions of the key player is crucial to that objective.

Most of us hold people responsible for their own actions as is the case with Nancy Lanza. Only a handful like you want to nullify the people to blame inanimate objects. You've always had difficulty seeing the trees from the forest. Maybe you should learn not to extrapolate individual case studies into generalities.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

No. Most of us don't advocate training mentally impaired people in the use of deadly weapons; or, give them access to guns.

Read what was posted rather than what you want to see. Nobody said we advocate training mentally impaired people in the use of deadly weapons. Apparently you read a few sentences, jumped to a wild conclusion, and then stopped reading.

[sexobon]

Nancy Lanza created a monster and got what she bargained for.

Most of us don't advocate training mentally impaired people in the use of deadly weapons; or, give them access to guns. Therefore, Nancy Lanza was not doing what most of us do.

Apparently, you're incapable of separating the various issues in this complex situation so you simplify your ideas in overgeneralized statements.

Your contention that "Nancy Lanza was doing what most of us do" is false. The things she did differently from what most of us do are directly related to the ensuing tragedy. You don't get to pick and choose which of her actions will be considered, which actions won't, and then make blanket statements about the entire case.

Get a handle on it or you're just you're just a waste of time. People get tired of having to explain this to you because you can't read, can only write.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Apparently, you're incapable of separating the various issues in this complex situation so you simplify your ideas in overgeneralized statements.

As usual, a wacko extermist uses personal attacks because he could not even understand what was posted. It was too complex for him.

Sexbon - please stop posting what you wanted to see. I knew the minute reality about guns was quoted from the research, then you would start posting cheapshots. And not see what was really written. As an extremist, you are predictable.

The report was so long and complex that you could not read it. You did not know they cited guns as a reason for so many unnecessary deaths. But now that the executive summary mentions it, you want to kill the messenger. Wackos extremists are so predicatable. Will even attack others rather than comprehend what was actually posted. Comprehend as in you should understand what was written before attacking it.

Some adults will always remain children.

[classicman]

Well said sexobon

[sexobon]

My analysis of your MO was spot on. True to form, you returned to your real agenda - gun control. The tragedy you introduced and manipulated, seen through by others in their replies, was just an attention grabber. No doubt a method gleaned from your father. When contradicted by rational thoughts from anyone else here, you either ignore them or you deny, deny, deny and counter-accuse. You can't be trusted to not manipulate information in support of your agendas, you never could be, you never will be. That is perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of your developmental impairment second only to the poor communication skills. Logic fails you; so, every thread you post in becomes your Kobayashi Maru and the cheating never ends. You have my sympathy. I hope the spirit of the upcoming holidays helps reduce your turmoil.