Lanza Sought Easiest Target

| February 19, 2013

Difficult as it may be to believe, a major liberal media outlet is reporting that one of the reasons that the Newtown shooter, Adam Lanza, targeted the elementary school was because it was an easy target. CBS News reports law enforcement sources are saying that Lanza’s motivation for the slaughter was violent video games and an obsession with killing more people than the Norwegian mass-killer, Anders Breivik. From CBS News online:

Two officials who have been briefed on the Newtown, Conn., investigation say Lanza wanted to top Breivik’s death toll and targeted nearby Sandy Hook Elementary School because it was the “easiest target” with the “largest cluster of people.”

Evidence shows that his mind, sources say, Lanza was also likely acting out the fantasies of a video game as he killed 20 first graders and six adults at the school. For Lanza, the deaths apparently amounted to some kind of “score.”

Do you suppose this might give any of those gun-grabbers on the Left pause for thought about the insanity of their so-called gun-free zones?


Crossposted at American Thinker

Category: Crime

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Hondo says:

    Gee – a mentally-disturbed but intelligent mass-murderer choosing a publicly-identified “soft target” for his crime as opposed to a more difficult one. Who’d a thunk it?

  2. FatCircles0311 says:

    It’s completely logical to herd societies most defenseless into kill zones with no protection because inanimate objects else where are instead worth protecting.


  3. jerry920 says:

    Ah hell, here it comes. He played violent video games. The talking heads love to say this but are never able to show cause and effect.

    Here’s a number. The latest Call Of Duty: Black OPS II has sold 22.3 Million copies. By simply saying he played the video game, and it made him violent fails to show a causal relationship. If 22,299,999 other buyers played it, and did NOT become violent, you could make the argument that it prevented violence in those 22,2999,999, but neither argument stands on the evidence.

    Until you can show a causal relationship, you could say “He ate cheeseburgers, and went on a shooting spree, ban cheeseburgers!”.

    soapbox /off

  4. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    The CBS sources are friggin geniuses! None of us had any idea that Lanza actually may have selected a place where it was unlikely he would be stopped before HE chose to stop. Also, I especially enjoyed the surmise that he “was also likely acting out the fantasies of a video game….” So they’ll do what now? Protect the kids with armed personnel? No, they’ll discourage kids from playing violent video games. Sure, that will work. Right. Geniuses.

  5. DaveO says:

    Here’s why I say Dems are pro-rape:

    Most alarming quote:

    “*UPDATE #2: via Erickson and Jesse Byrnes, this is advice the University of Colorado gives to women to repel attackers. If an attacker isn’t grossed out enough over the prospect of raping/beating/murdering a woman, it’s doubtful that any of this will do the trick:

    1.Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
    2.Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
    3.Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
    4.Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
    5.If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
    6.Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
    7.Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
    8.Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
    9.Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
    10.Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.”

    So, if one is a woman at the University of Colorado, if you can’t fake your period and can’t escape you’re supposed to enjoy your rape?

    That is a real war on women right there.

  6. DaveO says:

    Gun-free Zones are like Rape-free Zones.

  7. Whitey_wingnut says:

    With Lanza dead, the media can spin this anyway they want. There will never be a full reasoning as to why only the reasons they believe why.

  8. Just Plain Jason says:

    Wait so you mean to tell me that he skipped places that he knew that he could get killed early on before he got a high body count to go for a soft target to kill as many as he could before being stopped…

    Kinda like why foxes attack chicken coops and not cow pens…

  9. Tx gunner says:

    The sad reality of this in my opinion is the powers that be will never accept this answer for the sandy hook tragedy and there for no real meaningful action will be take to address the complete lack of security in public schools. In all reality it will happen again.

  10. NHSparky says:

    Mass murderers might be insane, but they aren’t stupid. Case in point. Several, in fact.

  11. PintoNag says:

    Notice that they didn’t ban cigarettes, they only taxed them to the moon.

    It’s about money, and control. That’s it.

    They will ban only enough to justify control and taxation; that will be guns, that will be ammunition, that will be magazines, that will be parts, labor, etc. They will now do the same with the video game industry.

    If it moves….tax it!

  12. Common Sense says:

    @9 – Actually, the Feds are proposing $30 million to place cops in schools.

  13. cannoncocker says:

    Ah, where is Joe the Rock Climbing Hero when you need him? I bet he could set the record straight on this! Or Sippy or ObamaGirl or any of the half dozen or so witless trolls who won’t get anywhere near this thread because they know that “easiest target” directly equals “gun free zone”.

    They never come out when it would be most entertaining. Shame.

  14. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    @12. The “Feds” are merely a handful of Republicans. The bill has no Democrat sponsors and would merely fund a Cops in Schools propgram that has not had funding since 2005. Rots o ruck with that.

  15. Hondo says:

    The Federal government has no business funding local cops – in schools or elsewhere. Local law enforcement is not a Federal responsibility.

    If local school districts feel security is important, they can ax a few administrator positions and use the savings to fund school security officers. They could probably fund somewhere between 1.5:1 and 2:1 officers hired per administrator eliminated.

  16. NHSparky says:

    Local law enforcement is not a Federal responsibility.

    Nor are teachers, firemen, state Medicaid, et al, but if you heard Obumble’s comments today, you’d think (if you were stupid) that if he didn’t get that $85 billion he wanted, we’d all have our houses burn down around us while being raped by laid-off teachers while we all lay sick in bed because we couldn’t get access to doctors.


  17. Tman says:

    Told you all.

    I just KNEW this idiot’s “motivation” was to up the ante and outdo previous mass shooters, all in order to get attention and notoriety.

    So predictable.

  18. NR Pax says:

    @16: And even if we could get access to doctors, the roads are too broken to be used.

  19. NHSparky says:

    Very true, because remember, we didn’t build that.

    Frankly if there are layoffs, the first people to go should be those who willingly whored themselves out to be his props.

    Funny how our rock-climbing boy ain’t coming in to spin this report.

  20. obsidian says:

    Wait till some wacko attacks a school with a VIED made from fertilizer to get a higher score.
    Not being able to get ahold of guns would not have stopped Adam Lanza, he was determined to get a higher kill ratio than brezink.

  21. Twist says:

    @19. You know he will try to somehow blame the gun and Conservatives.

  22. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @2 Herding is an appropriate term, cattle are herded and led to the long walk channel right into the slaughterhouse also…..and they keep stepping up to be next.

    I prefer not to be herded like a piece of beef on the hoof. Maybe I only have a small chance of success with my plan, but at least I have a chance which an unarmed, unprotected victim will not have.