Should've Nancy Lanza just left?

What would've happened if Nancy Lanza just packed up and left for good without Adam knowing leaving him the house? I hate to think what would've happened leaving a kid who has problems all alone in a house all by himself permantely. Nancy would've took her guns too and the shooting never would've happened or do you think Adam would have found another way to commit the mass murder?

When? At what point? Would she arrange to leave him the house or just pack up and go in the middle of the night? Never mind that this is rather out of character for Nancy, considering she's catered to Adam his entire life, this scenario is lacking some really key information, and as such the question can't be properly answered until something more concrete is established here.

Yeah, I agree with QuestionMark here as this is extremely out of character for Nancy, she might have been fine with Adam being alone in the house for a few days, I think any longer would make her greatly worry about his well being. Remember Nancy was afraid FOR Adam, not of him.

UncontinuedProcess wrote:

Yeah, I agree with QuestionMark here as this is extremely out of character for Nancy, she might have been fine with Adam being alone in the house for a few days, I think any longer would make her greatly worry about his well being. Remember Nancy was afraid FOR Adam, not of him.

Agreed.

I mean without the guns in the house, could he found anothet way to obtain them? I mean did Adam have a job or have some type of allowance to buy a gun?

bradt93 wrote:

I mean without the guns in the house, could he found anothet way to obtain them? I mean did Adam have a job or have some type of allowance to buy a gun?

He had a katana. We can only speculate, but had Adam lacked firepower, he could've tried using it.

I doubt he would have been strong enough to do that much damage with a katana.

Pixie13 wrote:

I doubt he would have been strong enough to do that much damage with a katana.

What about his Good Anime Mix CD? With his knowledge of all things Japan, his swordsman-ship skills most likely surpassed anything a regular human being is capable of.

I know I may sound like a bully for saying this, but he was freak of nature that never should've been born. Anyone who guns down children are evil.

bradt93 wrote:

Anyone who guns down children are evil.

Oh, and someone who guns down adults or teenagers isn't evil too? What about someone who beats their spouse? Commits rape? There's nothing any more heinous about killing a child then any of what I just listed. The only reason why most people consider harming a child to be more morally wrong then, say, a brutal rape, is because of biological instincts that tell us "protect the children, those are the species' future".

[Redacted]

QuestionMark wrote:

The only reason why most people consider harming a child to be more morally wrong then, say, a brutal rape, is because of biological instincts that tell us "protect the children, those are the species' future".

wheres the lie tho

"the only reason you eat food rather than diarrhea is because of biological instincts"

Pixie13 wrote:

I doubt he would have been strong enough to do that much damage with a katana.

There have been cases where bladed attackers have killed 30+ people, but I forgot we got to blame guns for everything.

I wasn't talking about any bladed attacker, I was talking about Adam Lanza who did not have the strength or stamina.

Pixie13 wrote:

I wasn't talking about any bladed attacker, I was talking about Adam Lanza who did not have the strength or stamina.

What strength did he need? The average Katana only weighs 900-1400 grams which for a sword is really light-weight (they're meant to be like that), there's also the multiple knives he had as well, and considering he was targeting children, he most likely would have got a large number of kills before committing suicide.

cakeman wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

The only reason why most people consider harming a child to be more morally wrong then, say, a brutal rape, is because of biological instincts that tell us "protect the children, those are the species' future".

wheres the lie tho

What lie? Where did I or anyone mention a lie?

This is such a far out hypothetical that we might as well be talking about if Adam Lanza did 9/11 after Nancy pressured him to be a pilot. That would at least be more interesting.

QuestionMark wrote:

cakeman wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

The only reason why most people consider harming a child to be more morally wrong then, say, a brutal rape, is because of biological instincts that tell us "protect the children, those are the species' future".

wheres the lie tho

What lie? Where did I or anyone mention a lie?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm saying I don't get how because it comes from biological instincts why that makes it a bad reason.

cakeman wrote:

I'm saying I don't get how because it comes from biological instincts why that makes it a bad reason.

I'm just saying it's not born of logic, but rather emotion.

Obviously it is wrong to kill a child in cold blood, but some people elevate it above other equally serious crimes and that just seems ludicrous to me.

One can perfectly dispassionately say "protect the children, they are the future."


Also, "muh species"

>Now, there is no such thing in the world as Man. In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life. If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him.