I did not just read you blame someone other than a rapist for what a rapist does . . . or did I?

nope, you rarely hear me 'blame' people for anything

as I dont believe things happen in a vaccuum

the primary responsibility is on the shoulders of the one who makes the choic,, yet there is culpability and responsibility shared by those who contribute to making that choice easier

like an 'accessory to the crime' charge in court

there is enough responsibility to go around besides merely the person who commits the action,,,


if someone has a history of being a child rapist, and I provide them repeatedly with children

I am not responsible for their decision to rape, but I am CULPABLE in assisting them with accessibility to the tools/or victims,,,

In this case, there is no accessory.

In a commentary for NationalJournal.com, Ron Fournier writes, "What if there is nobody or nothing to blame? Would that make this inexplicable horror unbearable? What if we didn't rush to judgement? What if we didn't waste our thoughts, prayers and actions on assigning blame for the sake of mere recrimination? What if we calmly and ruthlessly learned whatever lessons we can from the massacre -- and prevented the next one?"

As I see it, some people are seeking a scapegoat other than Adam Lanza to blame Lanza's crime on. Why? Because people feel the urge to punish someone for what happened, and you can't punish a dead person.

as I see it, preventing something is nearly impossible without knowing the 'cause' of that something

I cant hardly prevent fire, If im unaware that gas is flammable
the gas and the flame or spark TOGETHER create the fire

similarly, incidents like this result from several factors/ingredients TOGETHER in just the right combination

we can look at those parts and find ways to alter them, in order to alter the outcome

again, the truth, involves the whole truth

if we only want to nitpick the parts of the truth we want, than we may as well lie to ourselves altogether

In a commentary about the reactions to the Connecticut shooting, Dr. Manny Alvarez states, "This horrific shooting in Connecticut will not be explained any time soon, but it does point to the fact that our society is eager to find easy solutions to explain problems. We have to wake up to the realization that what this world of ours needs better communication and more simplicity to our way of life. The Internet, social networks, texting – all these gadgets make us impatient and hasty to jump to conclusions."

What if there was no foreseeable cause of Adam Lanza's actions?

then it would be an exceptional mass murder, as most mass murderers have some history of instability or anger issues and an affinity for weapons,,,,

what ifs are endless

what if there WERE red flags leading up to his actions (and I Suspect there were, as I Dont believe humans develop in a vacuum)

What if there weren't?

How are you at coping with unpredictability?

if there werent, than there werent

but there probably were,,,


people USUALLY give off some signals, we just dont always want to see them and sometimes ignore them,,,

The signals coming out of Washington seem pretty clear. They appear less concerned with public safety than they are with pushing through an agenda to disarm the American people.

You may not want to see that; you might want to ignore it, but any american who does, does so at the peril of not only himself, but his fellow americans.

Okay I keep seeing a school where teachers are wearing guns on their hips.

Its the old "Problem, reaction, solution" game.

For politicians to jump in there and use this incident to further their agenda of disarming Americans is in poor taste.

this is inconsistent with so much other anti government theories that its laughable

arent the gun manufacturers sending quite a big of funding to Washington,, and lobbyists,,,etc,,,

why would Washington want to put them out of business? think about it


gun sales are part of the great capitalist system that out government largely depends upon

the idea they wish to stop that particular source of capital is extremely illogical...

Don't kid yourself; the gun manufacturers will do just fine. The US is the largest exporter of weaponry in the world, so they won't be hurting for a market for their wares. The US wants to arm everybody in the world...except its own citizens.

yeah, thats why the manufacturers spend so much time lobbying in Washington,,,because they already do so well in the rest of the world.....


If I create something with great power, do you think Im gonna be giving it away or selling it in a way that puts me at a disadvantage

there is NOTHING that is going to be a real threat to the government in terms of weaponry or cyberspace, as they have the experts and pioneers which create them

the idea that we need to , or rather could possibly be a threat to them merely by being 'armed' is laughable

whatever we have, you can be sure they have intelligent enough pioneers to easily combat if that was their desire or intention

That's where you are wrong…terribly wrong.

Four dead US presidents would attest to that if they could. They were ALL killed by (allegedly) crazy people with handguns.

It is a well known fact that the first act of the tyrant is to disarm his people. Lenin & Hitler did that. Just imagine if the populace knew that the only real security they had were their guns and decided not to be "law abiding citizens" and were ready to shoot when they heard that infamous "knock on the door". I rather suspect that the Russian & German pograms might never have gotten off the ground. Moreover, I don't think Hitler, Stalin or Lenin would have slept very well at night knowing they could be popped off the minute they showed their heads in public either.

No…I think that an armed populace would have ruined the best laid plans of many a tyrant. I don't think it is any less true here and now than it was there and then. Your founding fathers could foresee it happening and enshrined the people's right to depose their government, by force if necessary in the document that serves as the foundation of your country.

No it is not "laughable."

If it were, they would not be feeling so threatened by State Militias.
They would rather have ultimate power, no resistance, and helpless unarmed slaves (people) who do as they are instructed, and who give up their liberty peacefully.

That is their idea of "peace."

They want at least 70% of the population to be dependent on government services in some way so they will be more cooperative. The more dependent you are on government, and the more in debt you are, the less armed you are, the better they like it.

killing a president isnt overthrowing a government,, a government is made of hundreds of people and that part of their military devoted to their service,,,

in a culture that is obese, and instantly gratified, and plugged into 'technology' americans arent overthrowing diddly,, let alone the trained and career professional death makers that work in our government,,,

or, capitalism works best when people are desperate for money, they work for less while their employers and ceos earn more profit

and in order to keep people from becoming 'too' completely desperate and turning on each other (Which they will do much quicker than organizing and risking a turn on the government) , the government sets aside a part of what those people are paying in to the system as a safety net for when small parts of the populace find themself earning just enough to make profit for others, but barely enough to feed and clothe their own,,,,

its about money,, dead people dont make money, the government isnt trying to work towards any violent 'overthrow' of the people, why would they need to when what we already have works so well for those who fund the country,,,,,?

Tell that to the bankers who had them killed….Oh wait…you're right…killing the bankers would have been overthrowing the government; the murdered presidents were just disobedient employees…at least the last two were…the first two didn't want to work for them.



Sadly, there is much truth in what you say. It is those very people whose sheeplike, self-serving apathy has allowed the government to deteriorate to the point it has. The whole country had better hope to G-d that at least 5% of the people aren't like that (based on the assumption that an effective revolt only requires 5% of the people) or the country and its people are doomed.

the government has only 'deteriorated' as much as the populace it represents

they are not remotely disconnected entities,,,