Peter Lanza interview with-The New Yorker

Discussion in 'The Watercooler' started by TerryJ2, Mar 10, 2014.

  1. TerryJ2

    TerryJ2 Well-Known Member

  2. svengandhi

    svengandhi Well-Known Member

    Nancy Lanza paid the ultimate price but so did 26 totally innocent people. I don't think Nancy was clueless, I think she was in denial. Apparently, she was aware enough that her son had issues to seek help for him through the school system. From what I've read about how the home looked and the things Adam was interested in, she would have had to have been blind not to have realized that giving this particular child unfettered access to firearms was not a good idea.

    I am fairly neutral on gun ownership. I don't shoot primarily because I have crappy vision and am a terrible shot. I think that most people who own guns are responsible but I do think that mandatory background checks and waiting periods are appropriate. I support the SAFE act in NY. H and the 3 oldest boys do shoot. difficult child was good enough to be scouted for a junior Olympic training team and my sons shoot fairly regularly in their scout group. If I had a child like Adam (and, thankfully, I don't), I would not have guns in my home.

    I think that as a parent you need to be responsible about what is going on in your home. Nancy ignored the danger but I don't think she was oblivious to it. If she was, more's the pity.

    As for Peter Lanza, I haven't made my mind up yet. I need to read the article again more thoroughly.