There are those who say that the shooter was obviously troubled and someone had to have noticed. Presumably, his mother is someone who was most in position to have noticed something was wrong. Since she was reportedly receiving around a quarter of a million dollars in alimony, so she had the resources to do something. So if you make that argument, you are strongly suggesting that she was an inadequate parent.

There are those who say that this happened because she kept guns in her house. So, one might argue that she created an environment that created a greater risk of violence.

There are those who blame gun culture. It has been reported that she was a survivalist Doomsday prepper who was stockpiling guns as part of that culture. So, one might argue that she is part of what enables such violence.

Here is a sample of comments:

Rich in PA says:



A lot of people died because of her stupidity. This is, as the economists call it, a moral hazard argument. Only the certainty of being reviled by society even in death will stop people from being negligent about guns, and I'm going to practice that on a personal level.

whoever owned those weapons should face strong criminal and civil penalties for failure to properly secure them.

And if the shooter is underage to buy the weapons, who let him get them? His mother is apparently dead, but his father is not. There should at least be an estate to go after.

I agree struggle to maintain open mind after hearing she told a friend her son "was unstable" and she "was worried about him" yet had not gotten him any "major help" because she prefered to handle him "on her own". yet also she had numerous guns in her house which he obviously could access somehow, and who she had taught to shoot. maybe he killed her to get to the guns for all we know..I await info if any comes

She knew her son was troubled, she did not lock up her guns. She did not lock up her bullets. It is possible to store guns at a range. have no empathy for her. ... She did not follow safety rules for guns in the home. She had a troubled child. She had the right to follow simple gun rules. She had the right to get help for her son. She has another son that seems to have steered clear of the toxic enviroment. Will he carry around a bucket of guilt for the rest of his life? She was not a victim, she was an enabler.

Sure there's a lot of speculation, but since it seems pretty clear there was a mentally disturbed young adult in the home.. WTF was she doing with firearms? Really! Any fear or justification for keeping a single hand gun, or worse a fucking assault rifle within access to a mentally disturbed person is downright and should be criminally negligent. She may have feared economic collapse or zombies. I don't fucking care... there's no excuse for this. She should have sucked' it up and dealt with the fear without the need for keeping an arms cache. She didn't deserve to die, but she sure as hell was an enabler. NO FREAKING EXCUSE for keeping arms in the home given the mental condition of her child. Locked, unlocked, doesn't matter - IF you're in a situation where there's mental illness at home, you don't fucking keep guns in the house. Ever.

This is some of the commenting out there and I suspect there are many people who feel the same way but don't want to out of respect for the dead. How do you feel?