I sympathize emphatically with the gist of yesterdays op-ed article of Priscilla Gilman in the NYT about putting blame on Lanza’s supposed Asperger’s. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/dont-blame-autism-for-newtown.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y&_r=0)

Her claim “…study after study has definitively established that a person with autism is no more likely to be violent or engage in criminal behavior than a neurotypical person” brings me to two questions: 1. What if the evidence was the other way around? Would that change anything in her basic stance? I don’t think it should. 2. To which studies does she refer, since the little information I have on this topic does point in het other direction. (I prefer to ask this question here instead of in response to the NYT-piece.)

More Flip Schrameijer's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions