General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew Photo Of Newtown Gunman Adam Lanza Released By Western Connecticut State University
This doesn't look like someone who should have had such easy access to guns. Unfortunately the NRA is trying to make it even easier for people like him to have access to firearms.
Of course he was formerly a "good guy" with a gun before he killed 20 children with a high powered assault weapon and 30-round magazines.
Adam Lanza Photo: Picture Of Newtown Gunman Released By Western Connecticut State University
NEWTOWN, Conn. — A photo of the gunman who killed 20 first-graders and six adults at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school has been released by the college he attended several years ago.
The college identification photo of a wide-eyed Adam Lanza was released by Western Connecticut State University in Danbury in response to a records request by the media.
Among the newly released records, Lanza responded "none" to a question asking if he had any documented disabling condition.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/adam-lanza-photo_n_3010067.html?utm_hp_ref=crime
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I wonder what was going through his mind all these times and if anyone even noticed. Guessing his mother and others did notice but didn't know how to reach or help him.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)....mmmm ok.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Sharpie
(64 posts)
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Can you honestly look at all of those pics and not see one insanely disturbed individual?
Response to EOTE (Reply #29)
Sharpie This message was self-deleted by its author.
u4ic
(17,101 posts)A simple camera flash could be startling to him. I know plenty of non-Aspies who even have the deer-in-headlights look in pictures because of it.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Guess which one of us is right?
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)I can't................
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)In fact, most of us do.
Most us don't seek out the most innocent, helpless victims to slaughter mercilessly.
In fact billions of people haven't done that.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)still see scared?
malaise
(268,930 posts)That is all
marshall
(6,665 posts)If they don't want see it as gun control, they can call it controlling the mentally ills' access to guns. Anything to keep clearly dangerous people like Lanza from having or using guns.
Then the argument becomes whether one must prove they are sane in order to own a gun, or whether it is assumed one is sane until proven otherwise, in which case we have to figure out what tht process will be.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)What evidence was there that he presented a clear and present danger to himself or others prior to this? He wasn't diagnosed with a mental illness. Asperger Syndrome is not a mental illness; it is a pervasive developmental disorder on the autism spectrum. I am autistic; I am not mentally ill, nor am I violent. Absent actual clinical diagnosis of a mental illness, what would have kept Adam Lanza from getting a gun? What would have kept him from obtaining his mother's guns, more to the point?
marshall
(6,665 posts)I don't know what the solution should be, but I do think we need to be trying to figure out how to identify people like Lanza. His mother was in the process of tring to get a guardianship over him so she could force him to get treatment,or so I have heard. What lead her to do that? Had he had treatment as a minor? Why was she having such a difficult time with the process?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... perfect case for why ALL guns in the hands of private citizens pose a possible danger and are a threat to everyone and why every nonsense "solution" to the growing problem of gun violence, proposed by gun culturists do nothing at all to improve the situation.
Bravo!
marshall
(6,665 posts)Unfortunately that is part of living in a free society. I'm not sure how we could implement a certification of sanity, but it would be useful in many cases.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Oh heck yes, that'll work!
Anything to keep from giving up your "The Precious," eh?
Everyday, the more I hear from the gunhuggers, the more I am convinced the gun culture is a mental illness.
Thanks.
marshall
(6,665 posts)Certainly all angles need to be discussed by reasonable people. I do hope a solution can be found that works for all citizens, and for the best interest of the society as a whole.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)..."for the best interest of the society as a whole" it is decided that private ownership of guns will no longer be allowed, what say you then?
marshall
(6,665 posts)We did it before, with Prohibition--although the consumption of alochol was never before that time specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
As I said, we need to work this out as a society and find the solution. If that leads to a Constitutional Amendment, or even a whole new Constitution, sobeit.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. it kind sidesteps the actual question I was asking. The mechanics of the how it comes to be, put aside, if solution turns out to be that private ownership would no longer be allowed, would you support such a law?
marshall
(6,665 posts)But with our current government, I can only see that happening with a Constitutional Amendment. I have two interests in the argument--safety of the society and preservation of our system of government.
Like I said, the mechanics aside.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And since she was concerned about her son according to people who knew them, it was extremely irresponsible of her to have them so available to him. Let alone taking him to the range.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)His mother fucking knew that he had problems yet kept deadly weapons in her home. Adam Lanza's mother was an irresponsible gun owner. Maybe in the last seconds of her life she realized her mistake, but hoo, fucking wee, her mistake by then had set a deadly rampage in motion.
I favor gun purchasers being asked whether that have a person with a mental illness in their home or such a person that could come in contact with guns. Asperger Syndrome is not currently listed as a mental illness, but given that something like two of the people that were associated with very public recent mass murders had that condition, maybe there should be a re-evaluation of the classification.
A person can't be seriously for gun control and limiting the number and scope of murders in this country and not be for some form of structured check into the mental health history or potential mental health conditions of potential gun owners and their associations. Please don't give me that shit about why not make the same requirement for people that buy cars or knives for the kitchen or hunting or bow and arrows - none of those items can wipe out a whole fucking food court of people in a blink of an eye.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)That's not been confirmed from medical records.
Four things:
1) Autism spectrum disorder doesn't make a person insane.
2) Because ASD creates no elevation of risk of criminal violence or gun violence that diagnosis COULDN'T be used to profile a person as 'clearly dangerous' prior to committing violence.
In general, that same problem exists for the vast majority of mental disorders. Even serious mental disorders have a risk of criminal violence (in the absence of drug use) only 3-5 % higher than the general population.
3) Post hoc ergo procter hoc arguments are of little help. Because he manifested his extreme dangerousness doesn't mean that the potential for that dangerousness was foreseeable and preventable.
There are an estimated 78 million Americans with a mental illness (~2/3 considered undiagnosed and untreated). If you assume that all 16 of last years mass murderers were mentally ill (which hasn't been established) the risk that any one of those 78 million would be a shooter in a mass murder was 0.00002%.
Finding the 16 among the 78 million before they kill is very tough. Very very tough in a society in which most people with mental illness don't seek treatment.
Even if there was perfect reporting between medical records and the NICS database, the 2/3 of persons with mentally illness who haven't sought treatment couldn't be included and about 2/3s of mass murderers wouldn't have a history of any mental illness.
The available data is consistent with that. Of the mass shootings between 1982 through 2012 only 39% of mass murderers had a mental health diagnosis of any kind.
Even the most intrusive surveillance of medical records won't overcome the problem of that absence of records.
4) I find your subject line troubling. I find the phrase 'control of the mentally ill as both draconian and authoritarian. Moreover, I really don't want the ignorance of Wayne LaPierre and his demonstrably paranoid view of society to contribute to changes in criteria for increasing the number of names of the mentally ill in the NICS data base.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)that is coming out. I really don't give a shit about whether he was "technically" a person that had a mental illness, he was fucking dangerous and at least his mom knew about that. Yet, the mom was able to buy mass killing instruments and no one was able to probe into whether she had associations with a potential fucking maniac.
The fine lining of what constitutes a mental illness that I see coming from many on the Left only causes the nut-jobs at the NRA, other gun nut organizations and their adherents to dig in deeper. That at least two of the recent mass killers had the same condition must mean something. May be the condition was not an issue during the past, but social conditions change, some condition that was once not a issue may be a lethal condition now. The Left must get off the recalcitrant position and at least be open to re-evaluation of conditions that weren't once a threat to society at large.
Gun nuts? They can have any gun they want, as long as they are 100% responsible and are willing to be held 100% responsible for use of the guns that they own. If they don't want to meet those two responsibilities, fuck them, they should have guns taken away from them and be arrested and imprisoned if they attempt to buy replacements.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)1) For many reasons, but mostly because those people are likely to be exposed to signs of danger not available to the rest of society including the police, FBI and ATF. Because of that, the public needs to be educated to this necessary task of watching out for changes in our family and associates.
Perhaps Adam Lanza's mother let all of the people of Newtown CT down, by failing in her civic duty. But did she know and have a sense of the gravity of her civic duty? We'll likely never know unless the surviving family members tell us.
I don't hear very much about increased efforts to responsibly educate society to prevent more problems like Adam's mother not recognizing the danger signs. Yet, she was in the best position of anyone to notice danger signs. Did she know them? Was she afraid of the social consequences of calling such attention to her son? We can't say.
But, while I hear lots of fear directed at ambiguously defined mental illness, I don't hear anything at all about educating members of society to recognizing danger signs and knowing whom to call.
2) I don't think proper identification of mental disorders and proper association of those disorders with known risks of social violence, criminal violence and gun violence is "fine" lining. It's really about getting a handle on the proper problem.
I fully appreciate that your don't give a shit about such things and just want to be safe. That's a pretty common position.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Not a good way to profile for gun ownership, though.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Response to darkangel218 (Reply #7)
ret5hd This message was self-deleted by its author.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Those are the biggest set of crazy eyes since.....
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqn70cnfZqyWJ3fyM8TydMYimwlYmhPMccUbupoOVa5o8WVCmu1Q
the runaway bride.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)a gun.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I thought we were past the stage where we made decisions about people simply because of the way they look.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)but it is still disgusting to make that decision based on how he looks
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)She should not let that guy anywhere near a gun or any other type of weapon.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)however what recently released information are you referring to?
The final police report here in CT wouldn't be released until June and they have not been releasing very much information.
If you are referring to what was on his computer, I doubt his mother was aware.
We won't know until June what steps, if any, his mother took to deal with his mental issues and only then if they can release the information without violating HIPAA*
*I think they can, however I am not a lawyer and this is a legal gray area
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)about their kid. and to the naysayers, there is often a "look" that goes along with the actions/symptoms of whatever is going on with that kid.
when something is "off", nature might be telegraphing that "look" (outward sign) to immediately "warn" others. Humans have evolved to a point where we often rationalize/explain/excuse/ignore/hope-for-change when what we see, scares us...
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
EOTE
(13,409 posts)In not a single one of them does he look anything approaching sane.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)Was Adam Lanza sane? Or was he mentally ill?
I know he was/had been diagnosed with Aspergers, which is not qualified as a mental illness.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)I know that various forms of autism do not make one insane, I'm on the autism spectrum myself. But that kid had something well beyond Aspergers. He was a ticking timebomb and his friends and family were too blind to do anything about it.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)And this is where the sides will never come to an agreement.
Laughner, Homes, Lanza. All debatable whether they were sane or not. People around them didn't or couldn't do anything.
Pro Control sees this as - "doesn't matter whether they were sane or not - restrict all guns so they may not fall into these hands"
Pro 2A says - "We can talk after you can adjudicate a way to isolate these three and not interfere with my rights".
That is a fundamental difference where the sides may never come together
EOTE
(13,409 posts)in this country need to be looked at. I'm really tired of hearing this as an either or proposal. BOTH are a problem and the issue won't be addressed fully until there is legislation passed which deals with both.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)Which is why I am wondering - and I may have missed this - what are the proposals laid out by congress (or NY or CT) that addresses the mental health issue?
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I have ZERO sympathy for that murdering little monster.
But you don't judge people on their appearance regardless of whether they look normal or crazy or anything else.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,173 posts)Half the country would be considered batshit crazy if we look solely at our Driver's Licenses.
B2G
(9,766 posts)It's the same crazy expression in every damn one of them.
I would love to know what kind of drugs they were feeding him.
treestar
(82,383 posts)were so concerned with what Trayvon Martin looked like, claiming the press used an old photo and digging up one where he looked more like a gang member or something and using it to argue he was at fault and started the confrontation.
So they do deserve it. As usual, they will prove to be hypocrites and suddenly not care what someone looked like in a photo.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Two posts in this thread are flat out pathetic. They seem to be paging their inner Dr. Frist.
Response to Lurks Often (Reply #15)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)In fact for many years I deliberately set out to look as crazy as possible in my DL photos, I thought it was a hoot.
B2G
(9,766 posts)doesn't look like a 'hoot' to me.
postulater
(5,075 posts)White between the eyelid and the iris is a sign of bulging eyes sometimes associated with hyperthyroid.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003033.htm
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)"Conversely when the upper sclera is visible this is called 'Yang Sanpaku'. This is said to be an indication of mental imbalance in people such as psychotics, murderers, and anyone rageful."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanpaku
I learned about this in acupressure classes -- Charlie Manson being the most famous example of yang sanpaku eyes. The first photo I saw of Lanza I imemdiately noticed the eyes. And yes, there are somtimes a person is visably mentally ill -- you can see major depression and pychosis in a persons face.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Google his pics. You can only see the tops of the whites when he opens his eyes wide in his 'scary batshit crazy' photos.
Lanza, however...is dead on
Ian David
(69,059 posts)Skepticism regarding sanpaku
There is currently no scientific evidence that supports the existence of the sanpaku eyes phenomenon. There is also no evidence to suggest that many of the listed conditions, such as the overconsumption of grain, are related to sclera visibility. Additionally, searching the term “sanpaku” does not yield any results in any mainstream psychological or medical journals.
The populariser of the sanpaku eyes phenomenon, George Ohsawa, did not have any training in the medical field, and is thus not qualified to make diagnoses or medically related predictions. In a similar vein, Ohsawa also does not provide any explanations for the supposed links between particular physical ailments, mental disorders, personality types and the different types of sanpaku (e.g.: why exactly is a visible upper sclera indicative of psychosis?). Ohsawa also makes note of some famous people with sanpaku eyes, such as Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy, and insinuates that their demise was linked to the visible sclera under their eyes.[3]
However, there is no mention of people (both famous and non-famous) with this characteristic that do not adhere to the list of symptoms. Making observations on famous people exclusively results in a biased and non-random sample, from which results or observations cannot be generalized. It is highly likely that many (if not most) people with sanpaku live healthy and normal lives.
In order to test this phenomenon, a scientific approach would be to acquire a random sample, whose sclera visibility would be compared to their medical history.
More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanpaku#Skepticism_regarding_sanpaku
However, it is a good term to describe that sort of look, even if it doesn't relate to anything medical.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)I, sadly, encounter mentally ill people every day who live on the streets. If I see someone with those eyes I generally make sure I avoid them. 
I've had too many run-ins that have been borderline dangerous for everyone involved.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I am always very very concerned about of the mental status of someone who displays this characteristic after reading about it years ago.
Sanpaku.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)Mental health. Yeah, he looks wacky, but the link between the two has been debunked.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)marshall
(6,665 posts)There's a whole new twist to the Homeland Security's initiative. If more folks had been following Secretary Napolitano's suggestions, perhaps it would not have been so difficult for Mrs. Lanza to find support to get an order of guardianship over her son.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)person that YOU know has severe mental problems is an act of pure insanity. The mom should have not only not have guns around, she should have controlled access to anything that could be used to injure or kill.
I have avoided weighing in on the gun debate with a strong opinion. But now I will give my opinion.
- Gun owners should register guns that they own PERIOD.
- Gun purchasers, even those that buy guns privately should have to undergo an extensive background check into their criminal and mental health history
- Bullet clip capacity should be limited to no more than 15. Anyone that can't hit a fucking target with 10 chances should not have a fucking gun to begin with.
- Straw purchases should be outlawed, people found guilty of straw purchasing should get long prison sentences.
- Attempts to ban the type of gun a person owns is fucking insane, it just won't work and gives gun nuts an easy straw-man to swing at. I am ok with and totally for limiting bullet clip size as pointed out earlier. As far as I am concerned, gun owners can own any gun they want to, as long as they accept being held 100% responsible for how that gun is used.
- Liberals need to go over the fucking issue with checks into a person's mental health history as part of a gun purchase background check. If I have a neighbor who acts mentally unbalanced, I want to know that there are barriers to that person buying a weapon. Liberals can't have it both ways, wanting restrictions on guns, but not wanting investigations into a would be gun purchaser's mental health history.
- Gun owners, you are fucking nuts if you think a gun protects you. You can be strapped to the teeth with the safety off on all guns on your body and get killed. If someone wants to kill you, you are fucking dead. We just saw a gun packing DA in Texas take 20 bullets in his home and a drug busting Sheriff in West Virginia get killed while parked eating lunch. You have to eat, you have to shower, you have to take a shit, you have to sleep, you have to drive a car or truck around, any one of those times can mark your last breath of life if someone really wanted to kill you. You guns may protect you from a punk on the street but so would being good with your fists and a little smart, but a hardened criminal would kill you on the street, take whatever property you have and be eating a hot dog ten minutes later, having completely forgotten about taking your life. Get over the fucking fantasy that having guns protects you.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)
