How do you know Nancy Lanza was mentally incompetent? - Edit 1
Before modification by Helene at 29/12/2012 07:07:35 AM
Everything I've read about her made her sound perfectly reasonable. A bit of a gun enthusiast, but nothing particularly wrong with her. She had a troubled son, but she was a happy and generous person with a good head on her shoulders.
Uhm... so it would be better if either Nancy or Adam had the gun? It's a simple question, would or wouldn't the situation have been better if there hadn't been guns in either their hands? I think the situation would have been better if there hadn't been guns. Apparently you disagree? To be sure, I'm just asking about this situation, it's not an analogy for total gun bans across the US.
That really annoys me, because 90% of America rejects BOTH views and always will, but the small radical fringe demanding each makes the others alarmism plausible when both SHOULD be dismissed as absurd. We cannot have effective reasonable gun control because absolutists on both sides dominate the conversation, even though virtually no one supports either.
First of all, I'm not in the US, so what I think has no impact. Second of all, where on earth do I say all guns should be banned? I'm just saying that where you apparently prefer a shoot out between mother and son, I think it would have been better if neither of them had guns.
Oh no, there's a Dutch person with an opinion, which turns gun rights radicals into unreasonable people! That's really a bizarre position to take. Especially because I haven't said that I think all guns should be banned.
is actually better, according to you, than a situation where neither of them have guns?
Why must it be all or nothing? Guns for all or guns for none?
Uhm... so it would be better if either Nancy or Adam had the gun? It's a simple question, would or wouldn't the situation have been better if there hadn't been guns in either their hands? I think the situation would have been better if there hadn't been guns. Apparently you disagree? To be sure, I'm just asking about this situation, it's not an analogy for total gun bans across the US.
That really annoys me, because 90% of America rejects BOTH views and always will, but the small radical fringe demanding each makes the others alarmism plausible when both SHOULD be dismissed as absurd. We cannot have effective reasonable gun control because absolutists on both sides dominate the conversation, even though virtually no one supports either.
First of all, I'm not in the US, so what I think has no impact. Second of all, where on earth do I say all guns should be banned? I'm just saying that where you apparently prefer a shoot out between mother and son, I think it would have been better if neither of them had guns.
Gun rights radicals insist all gun control=gun bans, and I cannot dismiss them by saying, "no one wants to ban all guns," because, look, here you are.
Oh no, there's a Dutch person with an opinion, which turns gun rights radicals into unreasonable people! That's really a bizarre position to take. Especially because I haven't said that I think all guns should be banned.