CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I haven't seen any explanation of how her son was able to get to the guns, but I assume that she didn't lock them up. That kind of negligence makes her partly responsible for the shootings. It's not exactly tragic that she died, but it's also a shame that she didn't live to see the consequences of her actions.
Even so, you still think she deserves to lose her life for trusting her adult son?
I am not defending her possible decision to keep the guns unlocked or perhaps any number of situations which made it easy for Adam to get his hands on the gun, nor am I defending anything Adam did... but I certainly don't think her possible mistake warrants intentional death.
I should have made this two debates: one on whether she was responsible, and one on what her punishment should be. But I think death is possibly a justifiable punishment for her role in killing 26 people.
At the end of the day she is just another victim in this tragedy, maybe she was at fault not keeping her Guns secured but a lot of people ignore the faults in their children, maybe she was in denial about her son's problems, she may have been keeping the guns unlocked for defense reasons, maybe she had her own mental issues
The thing I think is sad is the way she has been vilified in this, there have been candlelight vigils held for the victims and a candle lit for each victim when this was done there was no candle for Nancy Lanza, she has also been missed out when people have made speeches about the victims. At the end of the day she was a victim of her son's rampage.
She was just using her rights as an American citizen to bear arms, she didn't pull the trigger, those Gun's were just harmlessly lying around the house
According to the Gun Lobby Guns are harmless though and it's every Americans right to have a small armoury in their house with no restrictions.
My view is that this case highlights the need for stricter Gun laws but i'm sure the stupididty of that view will be pointed out to me and that the fact that stricter Gun laws would somehow make things like this worse will be explained to me.
Yeah, where did all the gun nuts go? Attention, gun nuts: we're in serious danger of thinking that it's not a good idea to arm mentally disturbed young adults.
I don't think there is anything sensible about your gun grab. Look at Mayo over here. He puts up a debate about guns that causes people to disagree with him, so then he starts creating more debates that people can't even argue with, then he creates a debate about a dead woman who was the victim of a horrible crime. How about England keeps all the rapists, thieves, and violent assaults, and America keeps their guns.
You haven't bothered to find out what I meant by sensible Gun Restrictions just assumed I was just trying to steal your guns. I dont understand your comment about rapists, thieves and violent assaults, last time I checked America was hardly free of these Crimes.
If thats true please back it up with facts, the statistics I read said that America has the worst rape statistics than any other country that publishes such figures 13 times higher than the UK
Yeah, and how is a gun supposed to prevent a rape, anyway? Assuming that she keeps it in her bag and not out in the open, by the time she realizes she's in danger it's too late to get to it.
I love all of the hypotheticals by you anti gun people. "By the time she is attacked it is too late a gun won't help", "The criminal has a gun so you are not any safer", "Guns are only good for killing, they can't protect you", but numbers show that the crimes that guns can protect you from are lower in America. You have no justification for your comments other than some gut belief that you can't back up, and you claim that the gun people are wrong because they like guns.
If there are more rapes when there are less guns, if there are more murders when there are less guns, if the are more violent assaults when there are less guns, etc. what would you propose is the way to go? Somehow, there is less crime with more guns. It does not have to be because the criminal will be shot if they commit a crime, it only has to be because the idea that he will get shot. Thus, the criminal never tries to commit the crime.
But how many more guns need to be out there before a criminal thinks they might get shot? Today, you can go into a school, movie theater, restaurant, or whatever, and safely assume that no one has a gun. It's not guaranteed, but the small possibility of another gun is not going to scare off the shooter.
If there were enough guns out there that the shooter could expect resistance, then yes, they would be deterred (except for those who are ready to die or even planning suicide in advance). But then those other people would be potential shooters too. If several people in a bar are armed, and some of them are having a bad day, and there's a drunk guy harassing them, that won't always end well.
Finally, we are going to talk about the real problem, lack of guns in England. I say if England had just 1 gun per 10 people it would be safer over there. Maybe start there and keep adding until things start getting better.
No, I don't know why. The British claim they are safer without guns, and I am trying to show that guns help deter crime. If guns were not useful, than we would expect violent crime to be lower, but it is not.
She was a victim, but she should have kept her guns locked up. She knew there was something wrong with her kid and should have made it so that he couldn't get to her guns. If you crazies started telling people to be responsible for their own actions a real discussion might be possible.
Now correct me if i'm wrong but America does not have a law saying that a gun should be locked up, that is the kind of thing I mean by sensible Gun Laws, proper background checks, guns should be locked up when not in use stuff like that things that could prevent the mentally unstable member of the family picking the weapons up and shooting up his school. Please explain to me why that is bad and in what way that is a "gun grab"
What I meant was I was expecting to be accused of being one because that's normally what happens as soon as someone mentions form of new gun restriction, I guess the delicate art of Sarcasm was lost on you
A gun is always in use, lock it up and it is actually less usable for self-defense and so on. Such a law wouldn't stop someone like lanza from simply opening the gun safe, and so on which makes it unreasonable because it's a law which sounds nice, but doesn't actually add any safety.
Only people with the combination or key to the Gun safe would be able to gain access, sure there would still be some cases where a kid might gain access to the weapons inside but surely a responsible Gun owner wouldn't share things like that with their Children or unstable members of their family.
Nancy Lanza's guns didn't help her defend herself, the same way that if an intruder breaks into a house and gets the owners gun first it's not going to help that person defend themselves either all they've done is armed the intruder
Yes, people should be responsible for their own actions. The problem is that people are so in love with their guns that they can't bear the thought of having their rights restricted in any way. So they say that guns aren't a problem, they don't kill people, they're just harmless pieces of metal and they don't need to be locked up.
I assume you are referring to the UK, yes the UK has strict Gun Control and yes there is Gun Crime i'm not denying it but to the best of my knowledge in the UK from 1996 until now there has only been one school shooting, how many have occured in America in the same time period? Still think Gun Control doesn't work?
I am not saying ban all Guns in America that would be futile, America is a country that has a love affair with Guns, i'm just advocating stricter rules on Gun ownership, rules that would make it harder for unstable people to shoot up schools, if guns were locked away when not in use it would be harder for kids to get hold of their parents Gun and go on a shooting spree.
That's one way, but I don't know if the antis are actually suggesting it. Simply having a law would deter people from breaking it. And people would get caught breaking this law the same ways they get caught breaking other laws in their home.
Just to clarify, I did not think that there would be a call for cops to go door to door, I agree that the antis have not suggesting that.
My grievance with your statement is that we need laws to get stuff done. We need to advocate locking up guns, not new laws. There are way too many laws to keep track of. We should have safer handling, but it doesn't have to be done with laws.
Everyone should deserve to live, even death row inmates, but as for it being her fault that he shot up people. I don't think it is. You can never tell how people will act on any situation, even if you're the best strategist, people could still surprise you.
I wouldn't expect her to know that her son was going to shoot up the school. But I would expect her to know that guns are dangerous and need to be locked up in any case. Especially if you have children. Double especially if you have a disturbed child.
Well definitely. That's reason enough for imprisonment, but not enough to have her killed. Especially to disrespect her for her idiotic decision, to say she deserved to die at the hands of her son.
She's partly responsible. More responsible than the legal organization she bought the gun from, less obviously than her son.
I feel for leaving the guns out around her kid, regardless of whether or not she knew he was crazy, she deserves maybe a house arrest sentence, and her guns rights need to be taken.
If someone uses your guns in America you are liable for what they do, so she would be taking some responsibility for the shooting had she not been a victim.
