Adam Lanza's motive

There's no such thing as bad. Good and bad are fairy tales. We have evolved to attach an emotional significance to what is nothing more than the survival strategy of the pack animal. We are conditioned to invest divinity in utility. Good isn't really good, evil isn't really wrong, bottoms aren't really pretty. You are a prisoner of your own meat.

Why aren't you?

I'm too clever.

Is this what you think can give an idea what Adam's motive was? Interesting. Though why would he want to target an elementary school?

Extreme mental illness, social isolation and malnutrition.
He clearly needed help, but no one bothered.

There really isn't a clear motive.

Targeting an elementary school was the biggest possible 'fuck you' to society and its morals. Lanza loathed society and civilization to the point where he equated it with rape. He regarded schools – particularly elementary schools, as indoctrination centres where the innocent, malleable minds of children are corrupted into accepting this 'perverse' state of existence.

Not only could he disrupt the institution he perceived as evil, but he could also exemplify his rage towards humanity in the most emphatic way possible: slaughtering its most vulnerable members.

in my eyes, adam was quite isolated, this isolation grew. he ended up hating society and everything it stood for. the culmination of all his rage was directed at elementary schools, as he viewed schools as the 'indoctrination' into this 'horrible' society. while there isn't a clear motive, i believe that his isolation and other extreme mental issues eventually led to sandy hook.

i remember seeing something that said that he wanted to do something infamous and so killing children would get that for him. i'm not sure whether that is true although i do think his mental issues had a hand in what adam eventually did

pluviam wrote:

Targeting an elementary school was the biggest possible 'fuck you' to society and its morals. Lanza loathed society and civilization to the point where he equated it with rape. He regarded schools; particularly elementary schools, as indoctrination centers where the innocent, malleable minds of children are corrupted into accepting this 'perverse' state of existence.

Not only could he disrupt the institution he perceived as evil, but he could also exemplify his rage towards humanity in the most emphatic way possible: slaughtering its most vulnerable members.

That's actually what I often try to say too, and I think that's the most accurate motive, because every other motive would just make no sense, like fame or something.

Maybe he too just saw it like killing these children would be better than raising up and getting "mind-fucked" and "raped", so they don't need to go through that suffering, he probably did.

Ossetia wrote:

We can speculate and theorise, but we will never have a concrete motive for the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Yes, that's quite what we do with every shooting, well, with every shooting where the perpetrator died.
But that's why this is "A place to discuss the Columbine High School Massacre along with other school shootings and crimes."

And btw, I think it's pretty interesting to discuss with other persons on this topic, because you maybe'll get a new view on things, you always saw the same way.

I think he couldn't handle his attraction to small children. The evidence is there.

gayforwilla wrote:

Ossetia wrote:

We can speculate and theorise, but we will never have a concrete motive for the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Yes, that's quite what we do with every shooting, well, with every shooting where the perpetrator died.
But that's why this is "A place to discuss the Columbine High School Massacre along with other school shootings and crimes."

And btw, I think it's pretty interesting to discuss with other persons on this topic, because you maybe'll get a new view on things, you always saw the same way.

Not all of them. Brenda Spencer, Andrew Golden and Mitchell Johnson, TJ Lane, Nikolas Cruz, Dimitrous Pagourtzis, Kip Kinkel, Luke Woodham. They survived.


But, yes, normally they kill themselves.

Norwegian wrote:

gayforwilla wrote:

Ossetia wrote:

We can speculate and theorise, but we will never have a concrete motive for the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Yes, that's quite what we do with every shooting, well, with every shooting where the perpetrator died.
But that's why this is "A place to discuss the Columbine High School Massacre along with other school shootings and crimes."

And btw, I think it's pretty interesting to discuss with other persons on this topic, because you maybe'll get a new view on things, you always saw the same way.

Not all of them. Brenda Spencer, Andrew Golden and Mitchell Johnson, TJ Lane, Nikolas Cruz, Dimitrous Pagourtzis, Kip Kinkel, Luke Woodham. They survived.


But, yes, normally they kill themselves.

I mean, I never said that everyone killed theirself, just, that we just can speculate in every case, where the perpetrator died.

Motive: Autism

eldigato wrote:

Motive: Autism

Very true.

Most autistic people are hardly violent so that cannot be classified as a motive.

Norwegian wrote:

Most autistic people are hardly violent so that cannot be classified as a motive.

‘‘Twas sarcasm. I’m autistic myself

eldigato wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Most autistic people are hardly violent so that cannot be classified as a motive.

‘‘Twas sarcasm. I’m autistic myself

Actually true, everyone with autism is commiting homicide. I'll just stay away from you.

gayforwilla wrote:

eldigato wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Most autistic people are hardly violent so that cannot be classified as a motive.

‘‘Twas sarcasm. I’m autistic myself

Actually true, everyone with autism is commiting homicide. I'll just stay away from you.

You never know when the tism will break lose and snap. This is a hanging thread!

eldigato wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Most autistic people are hardly violent so that cannot be classified as a motive.

‘‘Twas sarcasm. I’m autistic myself

.

Its good to see that people can make fun of this, because there are some really horrible people out there that are inherently mean towards people with autism.

Norwegian wrote:

eldigato wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Most autistic people are hardly violent so that cannot be classified as a motive.

‘‘Twas sarcasm. I’m autistic myself

.

Its good to see that people can make fun of this, because there are some really horrible people out there that are inherently mean towards people with autism.

I never meant to offense anyone. It was simply a joke, and we are on the internet, and you shouldn't take something serious, which a random person on the internet is writing. Sure, there are humans that are mean to them, but my message doesn't have anything to do with it, because I don't discriminate autistic people like them.

Ossetia wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Its good to see that people can make fun of this, because there are some really horrible people out there that are inherently mean towards people with autism.

I'm autistic, and something that I'll tell you is this: there is also a huge number of autistic people that always and constantly see themselves as the victim, even when they may not be.

Also, I hope that you saying "people with autism", like you did there, isn't something that you pointedly do whenever referring to autistic people. It has no meaning. You don't need to specify that we're people, despite what some of the "I'm-the-victim" autistic people may claim.

Autism has had an impact on my life greatly but I don't consider myself a victim. Hate when people try to treat me like I'm not capable of providing for myself.

Ossetia wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Its good to see that people can make fun of this, because there are some really horrible people out there that are inherently mean towards people with autism.

I'm autistic, and something that I'll tell you is this: there is also a huge number of autistic people that always and constantly see themselves as the victim, even when they may not be.

Also, I hope that you saying "people with autism", like you did there, isn't something that you pointedly do whenever referring to autistic people. It has no meaning. You don't need to specify that we're people, despite what some of the "I'm-the-victim" autistic people may claim.

Its more in the direction that they make hateful comments about autism. Not many people, from what I have observed.

AMOG wrote:

Ossetia wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Its good to see that people can make fun of this, because there are some really horrible people out there that are inherently mean towards people with autism.

I'm autistic, and something that I'll tell you is this: there is also a huge number of autistic people that always and constantly see themselves as the victim, even when they may not be.

Also, I hope that you saying "people with autism", like you did there, isn't something that you pointedly do whenever referring to autistic people. It has no meaning. You don't need to specify that we're people, despite what some of the "I'm-the-victim" autistic people may claim.

Autism has had an impact on my life greatly but I don't consider myself a victim. Hate when people try to treat me like I'm not capable of providing for myself.

I wasnt trying to make people with autism childlike. Im am well aware that many of them can make their own choices in life.

My point is that there is this assumption out there amongst some people that Lanza, Breivik etc did what they did because they have autism and over the assumption that people with autism lack empathy. To my knowledge autism is very diverse, and it affects people very differently. And also, what evidence is there that people w autism lack empathy? IDK wether this is true. A lot of people Ive spoken with have a lot of empathy for others.

Norwegian wrote:

AMOG wrote:

Ossetia wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Its good to see that people can make fun of this, because there are some really horrible people out there that are inherently mean towards people with autism.

I'm autistic, and something that I'll tell you is this: there is also a huge number of autistic people that always and constantly see themselves as the victim, even when they may not be.

Also, I hope that you saying "people with autism", like you did there, isn't something that you pointedly do whenever referring to autistic people. It has no meaning. You don't need to specify that we're people, despite what some of the "I'm-the-victim" autistic people may claim.

Autism has had an impact on my life greatly but I don't consider myself a victim. Hate when people try to treat me like I'm not capable of providing for myself.

I wasnt trying to make people with autism childlike. Im am well aware that many of them can make their own choices in life.

My point is that there is this assumption out there amongst some people that Lanza, Breivik etc did what they did because they have autism and over the assumption that people with autism lack empathy. To my knowledge autism is very diverse, and it affects people very differently. And also, what evidence is there that people w autism lack empathy? IDK wether this is true. A lot of people Ive spoken with have a lot of empathy for others.

You are right that autism is very diverse, although in many cases they tend not to feel empathy, I do not see it by much to a motive to commit murder. I was very angry when some supposed "psychologist" from my country who interviewed to analyze the Lanza profile blamed Asperger's syndrome, it really seems an insult to those people. It is very different to lack empathy in certain situations than to commit a terrible mass murder. Asperger syndrome does not make you murder people, to say that is very serious. Obviously he throws murderer for different psychological factors in which I believe that Asperger's syndrome was not the central cause of them not by much.

[REDACTED]

Mr Bubbless wrote:

lognifiiskurk wrote:

i remember seeing something that said that he wanted to do something infamous and so killing children would get that for him. i'm not sure whether that is true although i do think his mental issues had a hand in what adam eventually did

Honestly I greatly doubt your statement because if he truly wanted to be “famous/infamous” there’s no way he would have taken so many steps in order to obscure his path and who he was, he basically committed virtual suicide, you could use this argument the other way and say that it would be him trying to make himself more “mysterious” but I don’t buy that theory. There are much greater possible alternatives for his motive than “he just wanted to be famous”, I think generalising such a complicated incident down to one theory that’s merely anecdotal, is ignorant. That being said what you brought up should not be entirely dismissed just because the evidence suggest against it, but rather that it’s just kind of a weak point to grasp at in comparison to the complexity of the circumstances.

Usually, all kinds of factors play a role. But some experts argue that fame is part of it. In the sense that it doesnt matter that its for the wrong reasons.

I think it was a combination of factors, but I seriously don't think Adam Lanza had some grand ideological motive or that the shooting was extensively planned. I think it was a lot more impromptu than people think. By the end he was also malnourished, extremely isolated and probably suffering from psychosis and delusions. I think he wanted to kill himself and decided to take some other people with him, and elementary schoolers probably made an easy target.

majipan wrote:

I think it was a combination of factors, but I seriously don't think Adam Lanza had some grand ideological motive or that the shooting was extensively planned. I think it was a lot more impromptu than people think. By the end he was also malnourished, extremely isolated and probably suffering from psychosis and delusions. I think he wanted to kill himself and decided to take some other people with him, and elementary schoolers probably made an easy target.

how can you think the shooting was "impromptu" when the abundance of evidence from his internet history contradicts this? he specifically alluded to a desire to become a mass shooter numerous times, photographed himself with the weapons he took to the school on the same day as one of these threats and had been comprehensively researching the topic since his early teens. i would be interested to see your reasoning as to how this could possibly have been anything other than a premeditated, carefully considered attack. 

as for the insanity case, it would be better to present actual evidence rather than make such an arbitrary statement as you did. we can see one instance where this is possible, namely his discussion with a forum member on a possible psychotic episode, but there is nothing to suggest that in the time leading up to the shooting he was experiencing something similar. he was perfectly lucid in an email to an internet pal written during his time, and such a claim it would need to be backed up by evidence of something more erratic than a temper tantrum (behaviour he routinely exhibited). 

that being said, i think it would be rash to discount the possibility of similar psychotic episodes occurring; i just don't think based on the info we have that we can say anything like this happened on dec. 14, especially in the face of adam's long term behavioural patterns and manifest preoccupation with homicide. 

on the ideological point, i think his contempt for humanity and societal structures provide more of an explanation as to the why, while he in my opinion at least somewhat justified his actions to himself with the anti-civ spiel, and while i don't necessarily agree with the an-prim stuff, i still recognize that it is far from delusional.

pluviam wrote:

how can you think the shooting was "impromptu" when the abundance of evidence from his internet history contradicts this? he specifically alluded to a desire to become a mass shooter numerous times, photographed himself with the weapons he took to the school on the same day as one of these threats and had been comprehensively researching the topic since his early teens. i would be interested to see your reasoning as to how this could possibly have been anything other than a premeditated, carefully considered attack. 

as for the insanity case, it would be better to present actual evidence rather than make such an arbitrary statement as you did. we can see one instance where this is possible, namely his discussion with a forum member on a possible psychotic episode, but there is nothing to suggest that in the time leading up to the shooting he was experiencing something similar. he was perfectly lucid in an email to an internet pal written during his time, and such a claim it would need to be backed up by evidence of something more erratic than a temper tantrum (behaviour he routinely exhibited). 

that being said, i think it would be rash to discount the possibility of similar psychotic episodes occurring; i just don't think based on the info we have that we can say anything like this happened on dec. 14, especially in the face of adam's long term behavioural patterns and manifest preoccupation with homicide. 

on the ideological point, i think his contempt for humanity and societal structures provide more of an explanation as to the why, while he in my opinion at least somewhat justified his actions to himself with the anti-civ spiel, and while i don't necessarily agree with the an-prim stuff, i still recognize that it is far from delusional.

I didn't claim it was entirely impromptu, but I don't believe he had some kind of set in stone plan. Most likely he had fantasies and a vague level of planning, but nothing extremely certain. It certainly wasn't an attack planned on the level of the Columbine shooting, and I don't think he was certain that his ultimate fate would be committing a mass murder. I believe he frequently considered it and fantasised about it, but whether or not to take actual action was a fairly late decision, I think. Things like the pictures of him in his gear or pointing the gun to his head doesn't neccessarily imply that he was inevitably going to go and do a shooting. I'm sure plenty of loners with an interest in mass murder have taken similar photographs and engaged heavily in fantasy, but never actually carried out an attack. In fact I'd wager cases like that are far more common than people who fantasise, plan and then actually go on to do shootings. I also didn't claim he was insane, mental health and delusion aren't black and white issues. He was lucid, but it's undeniable that he suffered from pretty heavy mental health issues and I don't think we should discount the psychosis just because he didn't talk about it that often. There's so much we don't know about Lanza's internal world, and he might not have shared a lot of it with others. We do know he was malnourished to the point of 'brain damage', was constantly isolated and had been through an extremely depressive episode through the summer. Whether or not he was actively psychotic during the shooting, I don't know and I don't think it's an assumption worth making.

I don't agree with the anprim stuff but I didn't say it was delusional either. I just don't think it was the main driving factor in why he executed his attack. You say I don't have much evidence for my claims, but there is little actual evidence that he attacked Sandy Hook for ideological reasons (or for pedophilic reasons like a lot of people think). He didn't leave behind any manifesto or motive, and most of the connections people draw between his ideology and the attack seem tenuous to me. I feel if he was on some kind of ideological crusade, he would have left a manifesto or something along those lines, especially since he was clearly very articulate and fully aware it would be widely broadcasted. Instead he actively obscured facts about himself, though I don't believe that was done in preparation for the shooting but just as routine.

His ideology may have played a certain part in justifying it to himself, but I don't believe it was what he saw as the main reason to do the attack. Like I said, I think he was suicidal because his life was only deteriorating further and further, and he decided to take some people with him. This isn't me claiming the shooting was just because of 'mental illness' though, I'm saying that I think he was driven to it through a combination of factors and that his personal beliefs played a minor role, and that the shooting wasn't some kind of masterplan he had been formulating for years or months, but a fantasy he had cultivated in his head that he chose to act on fairly late.

I have to agree with Majipan. I do not think he had a polictical reason to do it. I think it was more personal because his life was deteriorating.
I also think like the police mentioned he was on the cusp of adulthood. What I mean I mean he was going to be 21 soon in a couple months. He was going to have to really change his life style or end up in a mental hospital or homeless and he did not get the mental health assistance when he was young.

I honestly think we will never really know what went on with lanza. Because unlike elliot rodger randy stair he left nothing behind and I do not think in all of his writing he ever talked about his private life or struggles.

Motive for killing Nancy: In my opinion, he had some contempt for being born into this world, but didn't appear to hate her. Even if he displayed it minimally, I do think he loved her. The preliminary murder was probably to a) make sure she didn't interfere in his plans, b) to practice killing so he didn't go into shock at the school, and c) so she didn't have to suffer the aftermath of his actions. In his obsession with mass murder, he was no doubt aware of the fallout even comparatively minor attacks had, much less what he was planning.

Motive for the school shooting: He spent all of his teenage and young adult years locked in his room studying mass murder. With that as his only life experience, his life shrunk down to it, and he likely saw it as the only fitting way for his life to end. Throw in his "scorn for humanity," and it's clear he was on a collision course with a massacre.

Motive for targeting SHES: Given his views on culture, he saw schools, elementary schools in particular, as venues for "mind fucking" of innocent children. SHES was a vulnerable target that represented the epitome of this practice - it was where he was culturally indoctrinated, and likely where he traced most of his mental issues back to. From his vantage point, the shooting was a mercy killing.
I can't help but feel that his comments during the attack lend credibility to this idea. Calling teachers "assholes" for example, for participating in the indoctination, and "look at them" (i.e. look at what you're doing to the kids / look at what you made me do to save them from you.)

Ultimately, I think all his actions were secondary to suicide. Even given his obsession with kill counts, he passed up the opprotunity to kill more by shooting himself the moment the cops came: there was 4 seconds or so between his test shot and his suicide shot, so there was also no hesitation, taking no chances. This detail's a bit more subjective, but I could see him killing himself and no one else, but can't imagine him killing others without killing himself.

If I may steal a quote from Patrick Purdy's report: "It is concievable that Purdy's behvior on January 17th primarily represented the implementation of a suicide plan with the homicides at Cleveland School serving as a secondary activity." This seems to be an apt description of Adam's case. (Further, in the words of Paul Appelbaum: "suicides with murder as an epiphenomenon, rather than murders that happen to end in suicide.”)