<p>Blame? THere are many kids with parents and family life more dysfunctional than Adam Lanza’s. How many of them have the array of weaponry that his mother kept, I don’t know That he had that access to those guns, the experience in using them and converting them to even more deadly weapons was in part what made this tragedy such a terrible one. Yes, he might have gotten access to similar guns, figured out how to use them, and been able to rig them as he did, but each such step has impediments that might have stopped this wreck. I think she locked up the guns, by the way. She was responsible with those guns within the context of anyone who owns those weapons, and I doubt she would have allowed her son to have had access to them, had she believed for a instant that he woud, could turn on anyone with them. </p>
<p>We aren’t quite in the days of “The Minority Report”. Trying to predict who will do harm in the future just doesn’t work in that we have probable cause rules that keep us from infringing on others’ civil rights without good reason. </p>
<p>I think we should be able to parent away access to assault weapons.</p>
<p>I’m kind of on the fence as to the discussion about Peter Lanza’s obligations, if any. I note in passing that if he admits to any blame in the situation, he could potentially be sued for every penny he has. So that may cause him to show some restraint in what he says. Nobody will ever be able to say for sure that this wouldn’t have happened if Peter had stayed with his family–we don’t even know if Nancy would have allowed him to stay with his family if he wanted to. I don’t think this is the same as defending Peter–rather, I would say that we can’t know whether he deserves blame or defense. Only he knows.</p>
<p>Maybe I missed it, all I wanted to know was why he stepped away the last 2 years and seemingly was content to letting the mother figure it out.
How do you even run this article without asking that question?
Mr. Lanza, your comment earlier leads me to believe that it was not until Adam was 13 that Autism and Aspberger’s were seen as possibilities with your son? Is this true? </p>
<p>At worst, you say the father did not respond to that question. this reads to me, like a PR piece.</p>
<p>If I have any bias in this discussion, it is because I have personal experience parenting a teenage son on my own about 50% of the time (due to biz travel, not divorce) for 5 years, and have >15 guns on the property. Knowing what I know about how difficult it is to be the only person in the house with an (undiagnosed) young man who is taller and stronger and fascinated with guns, I personally believe it is very important to have an authoritative male figure present in the household as much as possible, and absolutely, positively lock up the guns every minute of the day and hide the combination. And I say this as the mother of one of the sweetest, kindest, most thoughtful and polite young men you will ever meet (no bias in that part ). </p>
<p>Author, he stepped away, according to Peter, because Adam was refusing contact with him. He was asking Nancy for help with this and she brushed him off.</p>
<p>The legal aspect is something I hadn’t thought of that is absolutely relevant, because I think Hunt is right that if he admits liability he can be sued within an inch of his life.</p>
<p>I don’t think Peter is a saint, I just don’t think we can condemn him because he’s divorced and remarried, and I did not feel like the article was throwing Nancy under the bus. Indeed, to me it painted a picture of Nancy being trapped in Adam’s dysfunction and not really knowing how to help herself, which made me feel sorry for Nancy having never had such feelings before. I read the article differently.</p>
<p>Nancy was killed by her son. I feel sorry for her, too. Legal liability for a mentally ill 20-year old that you haven’t seen much in years is an interesting concept I hadn’t considered either. Probably, because it seems rather remote.</p>
<p>I agree with Hunt that he has probably already been sued.</p>
<p>The fact that he didn’t say much about his role says a lot about his role, to me. If anything it was a CYA piece, especially the line that he is certain Adam would have killed him too.</p>
<p>Childhood? They were divorced in 2009. Adam was 16 or 17.</p>
<p>I think that EVERYONE should listen to the tape of the radio show call that dadx posted above. It is simply remarkable. Adam is intelligent, extremely well-spoken, and robotic in tone. It is blindingly clear that in talking about the chimp, he is talking about himself. It is chilling, and reveals the depth of his alienation. It is also extremely interesting that he points out that the age of the chimp at the time of the attack was 20 in human years, the age at which Adam would ultimately go on his own rampage. </p>
<p>I can’t dismiss divorce as a non-contributory factor to Adam’s decline because Adam developed an obsession with mass murders in the same year as the divorce. Early 2010, Adam had been crying hysterically on the bathroom floor for unknown reasons. To me, Adam acted like a newborn baby crying unable to communicate his pain to his parents. The details of the argument Peter and Adam had over Adam’s number of classes last Sept 2010 were a little lacking. We don’t have Adam’s story on what transpired. Peter may have said things that probably sounded callous to Adam. He could have said the words he uttered in the article. “I wish you were never born.”</p>
<p>Peter said he didn’t want to fight to see Adam. According to Peter, he was sad but I think he was sad and relieved he didn’t have to deal with the problem child anymore. It was easier for him to wash his hands of Adam so he could go on and live with his new life. I wish though Peter had taken a different route and tried to continuously connect with Adam. Adam was his son. Send him some “I love you and I miss you” cards. Send him some gifts that may be interesting to Adam. Maybe a lovely photo book of pictures of Adam and Peter together. Anything to relive memories that communicated to Adam that Peter loved and missed him dearly. Adam was afflicted with mental illness. He can’t give up. He was his son. </p>
<p>As for the mom’s need to connect with Adam by making shooting as a hobby, I don’t understand this. Obviously the father didn’t find anything wrong with it either. I read the article and I can’t seem to recall the father talking about Adam being involved in any fitness activity except hiking with him. That’s kind of boring. No offense to hiking fans. I mean I only hike with my dog or when we’re visiting a new place. Did they try any team sports? If that didn’t work maybe try swimming, golf or playing a game of tennis with him. He seemed to like dancing. Why not enroll him in private dancing lessons? Maybe even go into ballroom dancing. </p>
<p>Why is that obvious? I think it is opbvious that he wished to avoid speaking ill of his ex-wife.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you serious? This is a kid who did not want to be touched by people, and you think he should try ballroom dancing? He stood to one side and didn’t speak in the hallways at school and you think he should try team sports? Sorry YOU find hiking boring, but many people love it, and hiking with a person is a great way to connect with them AND with nature. Golf is better? Only in a universe where the only worth while sporting activities are competitive and involving a ball!</p>
Why stop there? He already said Nancy controlled the Adam situation and indulged him. As for the hiking, I’m looking for other activities that Adam may have developed a passion. </p>
<p>My takeaway from the article, is the PR is in him starting to defend himself, If he can get people to think that the schools did not give him proper help, an outside source did, then he can deflect blame from himself and place it on the schools. </p>
<p>However, for the writer, to not question the school division never mentioned Asperger’s or autism until he was 13 (Especially after his 3yo drawings or the diagnosis of sensory processing disorder at 5) it breaks the aw cmon needle. Peter needed to be asked if knowing social cues are not standard within spectrum, how could He as father believe going outside normal via avoidance would not add to disorder in son life? Of course, those CST documents are closed and I doubt Peter is going to allow them to be opened up. </p>
<p>I think it’s not that we think Peter is blameless. It’s that we don’t think he holds as much blame as you think he does.</p>
<p>The “Peter defenders” don’t think that if Peter had stayed in a loveless marriage the tragedy would have been averted. Discussing divorce the way you have is pushing a lot of people’s hot buttons. There is so much guilt laden in most divorces, you are just adding another layer by insisting that Peter’s presence would have made a difference. Maybe it would have – but as has been pointed out, mass murderers come from intact families, too. </p>
<p>I have sympathy for Peter. What happened is dreadful, and I think he feels a tremendous amount of guilt. His statement that he wishes Adam had never been born is dripping with his guilt. Based on this article – which I don’t think was a puff piece or a PR job at all – Peter was a pretty good father after the divorce. I’ve known fathers who have vanished after divorces (and we see evidence of that in these forums every day). He saw Adam on weekends. He was involved in medical decisions. He consulted with Nancy frequently. As far as we know, he did send him gifts or photos. He may have done other sporting activities with him that weren’t mentioned in the article. Peter was a presence in Adam’s life. Notice that the first thing he did when this tragedy happened was drive to see his other son, to be a father to him. </p>
<p>I read this article, and I see both Peter and Nancy as being human. Flawed – because we are ALL flawed in some way. We all make mistakes. We all put off distasteful chores. Of course Peter should have tried harder to see his son after Adam broke off relations. But honestly, how many of us really would have acted any different? Think of all the things in your life you are putting off now by being on this forum? Shouldn’t you be, I don’t know, calling your elderly mother or baking cookies for your kids? None of us wants to think that because we put off that phone call our mom is going to commit mass murder. </p>
<p>This has already been said, but I agree with the interpretation that Adam’s Asperger’s diagnosis obscured the development of schizophrenia and/or psychosis when he got older. And Nancy got so involved in surviving day-to-day that she lost the ability to step back and see the bigger picture. Not only is there not enough support for families with mental health issues, every case is different so it can be hard to learn from our mistakes. </p>
<p>I also disagree with the notion that one is obligated to stay in a crappy or loveless marriage on the chance that divorcing will cause a kid to go off the rails. I would agree that a HAPPY two parent home probably increases the odds that any kid will do better in life, especially a special needs kid. But the fact of the matter is people marry who shouldn’t have, and I totally disagree that a kid who lives in a home with two parents who don’t have a healthy marriage, are never going to have a healthy marriage, and should never have gotten married, much less had kids, is in a better position than a child from a divorced family, which at minimum is now free of daily parental stress. Peter may have some questions to answer, but he owes no one a “justification” for why he and Nancy did not stay married. </p>
). </p>