‘Three Strike’ Mental Illness Violence Law may have prevented Adam Lanza slaughter

Adam Lanza’s mental illness claimed the lives of his mother and 26 innocent school victims

There was a fear moving across the American heartland long before Adam Lanza stepped onto the nation’s stage and donned the dark murderous mass killer robe. This 20-year-old joined the unique club of notable mass murderers that used a gun as a weapon of slaughter. After his onslaught the gun control hysteria surrounding stricter legislation has risen to a fever pitch.

Why purposely avoid holding the gunman’s mental instability responsible? Should any dangerous behavior factors or legislation that could have been in place to prevent this terrible murderous outbreak be considered?


What if there had been a ‘Three Strike Rule’ in place for Adam Lanza, which allowed automatic involuntary commitment by mental health authorities? Mothers, fathers and siblings need this kind of solution that will not make them the next horrific headline in America’s homes.

This rapid rush to judgment and instant condemnation of guns as the casual factor for the mindless killings by a disturbed gunman is just too convenient a straw man. Adam Lanza, according to Fox News reports, was upset that his mother was going to commit him for psychiatric treatment. And it was Adam Lanza that constructed the plan to destroy his computer to remove any evidence concerning his plan to murder.

Yet, it has been the mainstream media, along with the urgency of the gun control first responders to keep overlooking the obvious. This disturbed gunman may have used guns as weapons to kill, but it was his mental illness that was the true deadly assault weapon!

It is essential that the loss of such precious young children, teachers and Adam Lanza’s mother, Nancy, not be buried in the grave, while the true culprit to their senseless murders is ignored. Adam Lanza, a mentally disturbed young man, stole three legally registered weapons to commit his crimes. The emphasis is that the weapons were legal.

The actual crimes were formulated in his head and his conduct, unrestrained by possible intervention of law enforcement or mental health authorities, that became the deadly weapon.

So, why do politicians want to dismember the constitutional right to arm and protect the life of an individual or a family? These officials and gun control advocates are afraid to tackle the hard question and solution to this outrage. They absolutely refuse to hold the individual who had a mental illness, and has shown previous signs of forceful, dangerous behavior, responsible for his actions.

Instead, this endless cat and mouse game is played on the national stage by congress, state legislatures, and mayors like Michael Bloomberg, who hide behind their own protective guards and trained security. These first responders of gun rights denouncers are disingenuous. They purport to seek a conversation on what can safeguard society’s innocents, but denounce attacks on Hollywood movies and violent video games which savage the young minds of young children thousands of times a year.

These same gun control activists do not seek cooperation or genuine discussion but would rather demonize gun rights supporters and castrate the National Rifle Association (NRA) at every given opportunity.

On Friday, December 21st, when Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s Executive Vice President advanced proposals at the Washington D.C. Press conference, the mainstream media and gun rights opponents trivialized his comments. They demonized his earnest request to call upon Congress to pass a law putting armed police officers in every school in America.

According to Fox News, he spoke to the need for Hollywood to rein in its violent movies and for manufacturers of violent video games to consider the harmful impact that tens of thousands of hours of violence has on young children before they are 18 years old. These compassionate words were ignored by the liberal media. Instead, they feel that these mentally ill domestic terrorists will not mindlessly kill school children, if legitimate gun owners are stripped of their legal rights. Are you willing to take that chance with your child?

The harsh reality is that in America, there are tens of thousands of families who hide in their bedroom, kitchen or basement praying that someone in law enforcement or the mental health community will intervene.

These are the first victims. They desperately wish someone would help restrain, or intervene when their mentally unstable child, or young adult, continues to threaten or be abusive. Why wait until he takes the possible next step toward unrestrained deadly violence?

The individual who perpetrates the criminal act should be the legitimate focus, not the weapon he used. When this type of violent behavior is identified the person should be involuntarily removed before murdering family members and other innocents.

In order to keep the next Aurora, Colorado, or Newtown, Connecticut from becoming the new tragedy, a ‘Three Strike Rule’ to identify and remove a violent mentally unstable person from the home must be enacted. If there are three provable reported instances of agreed upon signs of dangerous or threatening psychotic behavior, that individual is taken from the premises for treatment by the local mental health authorities.

It is certainly too late for Nancy Lanza, the murdered mother of Adam Lanza. Perhaps if she had access to a ‘Three Strike Rule’ removal process, Adam would have been taken before the attacks and her murder.

The nation must take a step back from this frenzied gun control singular solution dogma. Of course, America need answers, but they will not be found in gun control laws in Connecticut or Colorado. These states already have strict gun laws, and still the tragic mass murders were not averted. A ‘Three Strike Rule’ is a workable solution which can be used to prevent another unbalanced gunman from causing more tragedies.

How about a meaningful dialogue around this solution that involves the gunman’s actions and protects the lives of potential victims!


Tags: , , , , , ,

Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • Gelston

    it’s a lot less expensive than armed guards in schools.
    and much more effective.

    • IndieDogg

       I’m looking for cases where this has been "much more effective" and I can’t find them but I don’t know where to look. Can you help? I really like to follow these threads through but I need sources. Thanks.

  • nkthgreek

    Political correctness run amok and leniency in the courts are the real issue:  A friend’s daughter became a highway patrol officer after her husband tried to kill her. He will soon be released after serving 12 years of a 17 year sentence.

  • wodiej

    couldn’t agree more. 

  • $8196935

    The revisiting of
    the entire Deinstitutionalization which got under way in the 1960s with the ACLU going to court along with libertarian psychiatrirists Szasz and Lang with the false idea the the Mentaly ill in instituttions have a right to live outside of supervision just like anyone else is why today we have huge numbers of mintally ill on the streets and others who commit crimes as we have seen the other week is the result of Deinstitutionalization 

    To obtaining attorneys at high cost to obtain court orders and hoop jumping
    To have them see a Dr. or to make them take meds to institutionalization a close family member

    Then you have the stigma of Mental illness, don’t want to recognize – admitt  that this is an illness just as a diabetic so the sweeping under the rug while the situation get worse and the net results.

    The 3 strikes is a mockery of this illness and one of many reasons this subject needs to be revisited
    as to overturning the ACLU – libertarian laws the Liberal judges went along with in the 60s .

    This will take years but at some point it needs to be started.

    La Pierre would have been wise to address this issue with experts along with him instead of
    the cost of a person with a weapon standing guard at each school.

    For the number of schools where I live, it would take several hundred and at that the schools are large and take up large areas, 1 armed guard would not cut it.  Also who is going to pay for a person 5 days a week for over 8 hours and where does this money come from?

    Start dealing with and educating people about mental illness and that it is a disease to be dealt with

  • IndieDogg

    Not to be a contrarian; I’m all for helping if something makes sense but I would appreciate being educated on this topic.

    The statement is made that a "three strike rule" could have stopped Adam Lanza. Just to be fair, I’ve asked this question of others. Could you please relate the contention to the facts of the Newtown massacre. How, exactly would a three strike rule have stopped Adam Lanza, specifically, in this case? I’ve read the post several times and I don’t see the connection made. Or am I missing something?

    Thanks for clarifying.

    [By the way, the story that Adam was mad about his mother’s plan to commit him is disputed and not confirmed. So, I would be careful before citing it.]

    According to everything I’ve seen, Adam Lanza had not demonstrated overtly violent behavior in the past. Where are the three strikes in his case? Since we can’t count the fourth strike, obviously, where are the previous three?

  • HuntingMoose

    I really appreciate bringing this topic up but One size fit all rule are often not the best idea.

    Instead, facilities and local involvement on a case by case basis should get priority.

    And speaking of priority. Helping these families and persons should get funds first over many others currently living of public money. Sadly, currently it is the other way around, starting with that fat-f$k who was screaming about her Obama phone

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets