You sound intelligent, and I believe that you mean well, but you are totally off-base in your assumptions.
The Lanza perp was over 18. His mother could not “institutionalize” him against his will unless he was found by a court to be a danger to himself or others. Obviously, we know now that he was dangerous, but there’s no way to prove that until he actually demonstrated it. We don’t lock people up pre-emptively.
Perhaps you think we should, but there’s no way it happens now, even for parents who wish it. So your gripe is with the law as it stands.
It has NOTHING to do with his mother’s or father’s finances, but rather with how the mental health system operates, including the inability to remove the dangerous prior to the act.
You can use silly words like “libtards” and “Whackoboy” and you can blame the parents, but I would prefer a serious and respectful discussion of how we address the problem of how to prevent seriously mentally ill people from endangering us all.
“The Lanza perp was over 18. His mother could not “institutionalize” him against his will unless he was found by a court to be a danger to himself or others. Obviously, we know now that he was dangerous, but there’s no way to prove that until he actually demonstrated it. We don’t lock people up pre-emptively.”
The mother could have filed criminal charges long ago, but refused. Her having decided not to press crtiminal charges meant she was rendering herself helpless in the eyes of teh law because she wanted to shield her boy from the obvious insanity issues he was acting out.
She could have fiked said criminal cahrge and then had him institutionalized, but didn’t.
That doomed her and many others.
I should have made the tine lime issue more clear. Sorry for the confusion.
I meant “Libtards” because it is succinct and accurate. Same with WhackoBoy, because it is descriptive and he evidently was a nutter since childhood.
Yes, the terms are derisive, and meant to be. Nobody has the right to foist the probably criminally insane off on an unsuspecting public.
She so did, to protect her little nutter. Her little nutter killed her - her choice/consequence.
But - her little nutter then kills many others. Those others could not make an informed choice to take the risk nutter posed but they were deliberately not informed by nutter’s mother.
You may respect people who willingly expose others to lethal threats without proper disclosure. I choose not to afford “respect” where none is due.
However, I must remind you my discussion is serious. My proposed solutions:
1. Allow Constitutional Carry - under which teachers could have exercised their Natural Law Right to protect themselves. As the Roman Law put it “Force may be met with force.” To disarm anyone leaves them helpless against the non law abiding.
2. Accept that society is not responsible for the genetically damaged such as this boy, and pass laws such that those not making known psychotic risks known are liable for damages done by the person they protected.
Use the legal principle under which the get away driver is as responsible as the trigger puller.
Of the two proposals above, I prefer the first. The second requires that we trust government trough feeders to make psychiatric decisions when the whole field is mostly soft and astonishingly little science.
Given that the disaster came to pass in Connecticut, is is ironic in the extreme that a Connecticut company makes what is needed to prevent another such disaster from occurring. I refer, of course, to Smith & Wesson.
In closing, the Israeli’s had an attack on a school in 1973, IRRC. Since then, the Israel policy has prevented ANY school shootings. They require teachers to be armed, and even the older students.
That works. What America’s Libtards, commies, and education goonion members has foisted off on us is in failure mode.
Summation: Guard students like the Israeli’s do.