Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
But how could she not have seen this coming?
The kid checks all of the boxes of being a potential problem. He was a loner in school, not well liked, mediocre in school, had mental health issues to the point where he had a psychiatrist assigned to him in high school, he flunked out of college, didn't have a job, and locked himself up playing violent video games while surrounded by posters of firearms and military hardware.
A week before the shooting she was quoted as saying "I'm losing him". The very moment the kid was seeing the psychiatrist she should have said "Gee, maybe having firearms in the house isn't such a good idea".
Was she guilty of a crime? I have no idea. She enabled her son to have access to an assault rifle that killed twenty kids. If she didn't have firearms in the house, those kids would be alive today. You tell me if she's guilty or not.
What's even worse... This kid could have gone out and legally purchased a firearm. Maybe they have an age restriction in CT, but he would have passed a background check with no problem. That's fucking scary.
|
She had no idea that he would do what he did. Neither did his Psychiatrist. You make my point that you can't stop a crazy person from doing damage before they do it. Only thing you can do is stop them as quickly as possible. He tried to buy a gun btw, and was rejected. But even if he had bought it. He was not a criminal until he did what he did. But thanks to gun free zones, he was able to do it unopposed. When a mom says I'm losing him, do you really think that means he will go homicidal? The odds against someone doing what he did are astronomical. More people win lotteries than do this. It is nice to get inflamed and want to try to make laws to fix things I guess, but there were plenty of laws to stop him. But laws don't stop criminals. They just help put them away after the crime is already done.