NOT GOOD, Connecticut shooter was diagnosed with Aspergers..

Post Reply New Topic

News sources like CNN like to create hysteria from the smallest thing. This is why they over exaggerated on reporting the Carnival Triumph fire.

Long-term, it won't matter much. Gun laws will not stop these kinds of things and there will be more incidents. Most will be remembered by city rather than their name.

Some of the latest is saying he was obsessed with Anders and wanted to "outdo" him. Usual copycat crazy if that.

I recall Martin Bryant said that he wanted to "outdo" Thomas Hamilton too.

So, a copycat crazy fame grab type deal?

You can't deny that these people will have "fame" and live in infamy in all of our lifetimes.

"You can't legislate crazy" (to quote certain people), and that's something I agree with. Well, you can, but you'll trample human rights till they don't exist anymore on the way there.

I haven't kept up with this thread since the last time I posted to it, but I figured I'd share this link to an article on a show about Adam that's airing today:

http://www.ctnow.com/news/connecticut/n ... full.story

That article alone is a powerful illustration of what is clearly, blatantly, undeniably autism.

Yep...just a coincidence that, like, every other kid who does something like this is obviously autistic.

I can't get over the guy in this thread with the "Mental illness is ______. Asperger's is what happens to the people who are lucky enough..." (or whatever it says) signature. Surely this ridiculous statement is a severe indictment of the intellectual honesty of the person who made it. I can't believe that a bunch of pedantic, brutally honest people like us Aspies would allow this obvious BS deception to proliferate so freely, wholly unchallenged.

Yeah on the Frontline PBS show that just aired, they seemed to key in on his AS over and over. They didn't say "his Asperger's caused him to do this," but they definitely were trying to get that point across firmly.

That was a tough read, still part of the picture is missing. I can see if he had a meltdown grabed a gun and shot up the place that can be the fault of Asperger however this was long in the making and too well planned. I think they need to investigate the personallity disorder part that has been reported meny times more as I beleave that will paint the picture of why he did it. He sounded extreamly disturbed and sounded like he had major mental issues. The asperger expeirence may have helped set the stage in some way for his thoughts on life however it can begin to explain what he did. I know I can't relate to most of the artical as I have never ever felt like that. I would not be surprised to learn he missed a few diagnosis either, his blood was just so cold.

Yes, finally, someone has mentioned the easy availability of guns. What the people who claim that 'guns don't kill people, people do' fail to realise is that it is far easier for a killer with a gun to kill, than it is for a killer without one. A killer who has just his bare hands or a knife can be far more easily overpowered than a shooter.

In South Korea, it's socially acceptable to throw molotov cocktails and rocks at the police. Overall, private gun ownership has worked out well. The problem has been attempts to use preventive measures to legislate away people doing bad things, and being very soft on violent crime. Our prison system is broken because so many violent criminals are allowed to live. They suffer from an acute lead deficiency and people need to be able to fix that when it manifests in front of them!

Not really. A person could massacre a couple of classrooms of kids and a few teachers with a hunting knife. You just need to be determined and know how to inflict lethal wounds. On a whole, it'd be harder to rush a determined knife wielder than one with a firearm; you'll always take casualties when rushing a firearm user, but if there's more than a couple doing such in close quarters (which these things tend to be), then the firearm wielder would be easier to rush. You can't really rush a knife wielder unarmed (improvised weapons are fairly useless here); even a handful of people won't be able to (they can, but they'll readily experience fatal wounds at arm distance; within that distance and a firearm user is disarmed by a handful of people). Knifes never get the respect they deserve.

I'm assuming the firearm and knife wielders are equally skilled and determined.

Fox News

"Report says school shooter Lanza had controversial sensory condition, Asperger's"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/21/sa ... -asperger/

Not good...

Well, that really depends on the kind of firearm really. If it is an AK-47 or M-16 then by the time you have disarmed the offender he will have caused quite a large number of deaths. An old shotgun, or any gun that can fire only one round at a time, will not be anywhere near as lethal. Then of course there is the situation itself, and whether or not there is anyone nearby who can physically overpower the shooter. Someone with a knife may or may not know 'how to inflict lethal wounds', but if the past is any guide to go by most of those who go on a rampage (with a gun that is) are not the most intelligent, just the most deranged.

Who knows, you could be right, but if guns are freely and abundantly available, then the killer wont select a knife instead; that's just not going to happen.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Is it a joke? Let me get this straight. You justify gun ownership by pointing to the South Koreans who have a more lethal, and 'socially acceptable', weapon at hand - Molotov Cocktails! - and this fact therefore justifies the possession of guns by others.
Preventative measures to reduce crime (like having police patrol the streets, perhaps?) have obviously not worked, so the solution is to just wait for someone to commit a felony - we can't prevent them after all - and then execute them!
Criminals suffer from 'acute lead deficiency' - how simple and convenient! The only problem is that lead is poisonous in large enough quantities, so I don't think that we should be giving anyone large doses of lead. Perhaps you meant iron?

This is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. Being "tougher on crime" isn't going to stop suicidal rampage killers. These people almost always save the last bullet for themselves or plan on a "death by cop" ending. The Aurora shooter only surrendered rather than offing himself because his gun jammed.

I think you're stretching it here. There's no way I'd ever try take on a knife wielder hand-to-hand, but I'd probably consider throwing whatever is available at the assailant, chairs, tables, books, etc... mainly to distract the person and give myself and others a chance to get away. If the assailant had a gun I'd be in immediate danger at any distance within sight. The only situation where I'd have a better chance with the gun wielder is if I happened to be immediately next to the assailant when the weapon was drawn and the barrel wasn't initially pointed at me.

But to protect the children you'd need to assault the wielder -- there wouldn't be enough teachers in place to do that.

It's hard to hit a moving target with a firearm (moving across your line of sight). Plus you only need to break line of sight to become relatively immune to such (corridors and the insides of buildings offer ample cover -- the one problem is if the shooter is smart about it, such as what Cho did; he stood at the doorway and shot from there into the lecture halls -- the people that survived in the halls hid behind overturned desks -- whilst he could shoot through them easily enough, getting lethal hits on people here is guesswork). But yes, within the effective range of the firearm, you're in danger, and that effective range is greater than a melee weapon. The Whitman massacre is a perfect example of that.

My main point is though that they're two weapons that can be utilized to inflict many fatalities and casualties, and neither is "better" than the other based on far too many variables involved. Evidence enough would be the many massacres that have involved melee weapons only -- there's been several with similar levels of killed as the one this thread is about.

Yes, you are precisely right, and this is the point that I was trying to make. A man with a knife would be difficult to disarm hand-to-hand, but even so you could still distract them, throw objects at them, and generally do other things to unnerve them. That would obviously not work with someone who had a gun; he would just pull the trigger, and you would be dead. Then he would pull the trigger again, killing someone else nearby. Why can't the pro-gun advocates see this, or do they willingly choose not to?