Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why Sandy Hook Massacre Spawned Conspiracy Theories

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 17, 2013, 1:14 p.m. EST by LeoYo (5866)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Why Sandy Hook Massacre Spawned Conspiracy Theories

By Benjamin Radford, LiveScience Bad Science Columnist | LiveScience.com – 22 hrs ago

http://news.yahoo.com/why-sandy-hook-massacre-spawned-conspiracy-theories-184323398.html

One month after the Sandy Hook school shootings, the list of victims continues to grow. One man, Gene Rosen — who found six children and a bus driver in his driveway, brought them into his home, fed them and called parents to assure them that their children were safe — has been harassed by telephone, email and online by those who think he is lying about his actions, and is part of a conspiracy. Rosen is not the first hero to be assaulted and insulted by conspiracy theorists with doubts. In 2002, when conspiracy theorist Bart Sibrel confronted astronaut Buzz Aldrin and called him a "coward and a liar" for faking the moon landings, the 72-year-old promptly punched Sibrel in the face.

A group called the Sandy Hook Truther movement has emerged from the dust and chaos over the past weeks to claim that the school shooting was all a staged event. Though many Americans are outraged and incredulous that anyone could doubt that the tragedy even happened, the Sandy Hook school shootings follow classic conspiracy thinking. Here are a few reasons why.

Poignant political implications

Shootings — even child murders — happen every day, several times a day, in America. According to UNICEF, America has the worst record of child abuse and homicide in the industrialized world, with an average of 27 children killed every week by their parents and caregivers. But those child murders don't have implications for enacting a national policy on gun control.

Most events producing conspiracy theories have important social and political implications, and the Sandy Hook shootings are no exception. No one, regardless of what side of the gun control issue they are on, can deny that guns played a key role in the Sandy Hook killings. So the conspiracy theorists must instead challenge the claim that the attack even occurred. They believe it's all a hoax to scare people into supporting more gun control and a step toward an outright repeal of the Second Amendment.

'Holes' in the 'official story'

A common theme running through conspiracy thinking is that if you're smart enough, and just look closely enough at all the news coverage and available information, you can see lies and contradictions in accounts of the event. Truthers claim that they have found "absolute proof" that the shootings were a hoax, pointing to a 6-year-old girl named Emilie Parker, who was shot to death in the school massacre.

Or was she? They claim that the smoking-gun photographic proof that Emilie is still alive is that she was photographed after the shooting with President Obama during a visit with the families. The girl is actually Emilie's sister, wearing the same dress that Emilie wore in another photograph.

In the topsy-turvy world of conspiracy thinking, any little girl who resembles Emilie and is wearing the same dress as one she owned must be her. It could not possibly be her sister, who could not possibly be wearing either Emilie's dress or an identical one. Instead, it's obviously proof that the whole shooting was faked.

But this claim, even if it were true, raises more questions than it answers. For example, if Sandy Hook was indeed a "staged event" as claimed, with Emilie Parker alive and the president part of the conspiracy, why would the government be so careless as to release a photograph of Emilie, knowing that she had been reported dead in a carefully orchestrated national hoax? Is a widely published photo opportunity with the president of the United States really the best place to hide someone who is supposedly dead?

Conspiracy theorist websites offer dozens of other examples and pieces of evidence, ranging from real or perceived contradictions in eyewitness accounts to conflicting news reports. And indeed there are some contradictions.

The minds of conspiracy theorists

But what the conspiratorial mind sees as misinformation and lies, others see as merely perfectly ordinary incomplete and inaccurate information following a multifaceted tragedy. Especially in the hours and first days after such a chaotic and horrifying event, witnesses can be confused and mistaken. Police officers and reporters can misspeak, or be given incorrect information.

Not every single statement about what occurred, from dozens of different people in different places at different times, will agree in every detail. Three different witnesses to a minor car accident will often give three slightly different accounts of what they saw, so it's unrealistic to expect dozens of people who were involved in a chaotic school massacre to report exactly the same things.

Part of the reason that conspiracy theories linger is that any contradictory evidence — no matter how conclusive or compelling — can just be dismissed by claiming that it's part of the cover-up. There is ultimately no evidence that would satisfy most conspiracy theorists. Those who distrust the government will use any excuse to support their beliefs, logical or not. Conspiracy theorists prefer complex mysteries over simple truths, and find mystery where none exists.

Research has shown not only that a person who believes in one conspiracy theory is likely to support others, but also contradictions don't deter conspiracy theorists.

The idea that the Sandy Hook massacre was faked is not only absurd, but also an insult to the victims of the tragedy. The victims are really, provably gone; they are not safely hidden away somewhere until the Sandy Hook shooting has served its ultimate goal of taking away America's guns. The bullet holes are there. The children and adults are dead. Toxic conspiracies, however, will live on.

Benjamin Radford is deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine and author of six books, including "Media Mythmakers: How Journalists, Activists, and Advertisers Mislead Us." His website site is www.BenjaminRadford.com.

.

Sheriffs, state lawmakers push back on gun control

By JEFF BARNARD | Associated Press

http://news.yahoo.com/sheriffs-state-lawmakers-push-back-gun-control-100605550.html

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — From Oregon to Mississippi, President Barack Obama's proposed ban on new assault weapons and large-capacity magazines struck a nerve among rural lawmen and lawmakers, many of whom vowed to ignore any restrictions — and even try to stop federal officials from enforcing gun policy in their jurisdictions.

"A lot of sheriffs are now standing up and saying, 'Follow the Constitution,'" said Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, whose territory covers the timbered mountains of southwestern Oregon. But their actual powers to defy federal law are limited. And much of the impassioned rhetoric amounts to political posturing until — and if — Congress acts.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said Wednesday it's unlikely an assault weapons ban would actually pass the House of Representatives. Absent action by Congress, all that remains are 23 executive orders Obama announced that apply only to the federal government, not local or state law enforcement.

62 Comments

62 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I have a hard time with the US gov telling people here they cant have ARs and shipping them to rebels and drug lords all over. The cover got blown with the Mexico thing, but no one cares.

Im not concerned so much with the actual gun issue, as I am the gov blatantly doing things in broad daylight that are hypocritical. I mean go ahead and ban em, people arent going to turn em in, and the black market will take care of the rest, like it always does.

If they cant keep the drugs out of the country, how are they going to keep the guns out?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The thing about providing the weapons to foreign countries - is - it gives em an excuse to some day invade/intervene. Yep even if the arms were sold to the government. Sales opportunity for the MIC and excuse to intervene later - setting up a resupply opportunity for the MIC.

[-] 2 points by SteadyRock (63) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Why do you repost entire article, its annoying! Sandy hook might be a conspiracy. Only god knows what was there! We usually say this when there is a room for the doubt.Jim Conway, a former FBI terrorist task force special agent, says the theory is ludicrous. Take a listen of what he said: http://news92fm.com/318394/sandy-hook-truthers-argue-conn-school-was-merely-a-hoax/ he compared the Connecticut shooting with 911 , such a dumb comparison. I mean, for those who understand the irony and be able to draw the parallels. If you don't understand me people don't try to insult. Here is my comparison based on the real evidence: the beslan school shooting in Russia: https://www.google.com/search?q=beslan+bodies&hl=en&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=gAv6UO21LeWw0AGtq4HoBg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAA&biw=1024&bih=677 Connecticut shooting bodies : https://www.google.com/search?q=connecticut+shooting+corpses&hl=en&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=lAv6UOKQDKrp0gGAYg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&biw=1024&bih=677#hl=en&tbo=d&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=connecticut+shooting+bodies&oq=connecticut+shooting+bodies&gs_l=img.3..0l2j0i24l8.151235.152818.0.154037.6.4.0.2.2.0.65.225.4.4.0...0.0...1c.1.y90WJlzsmNE&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41248874,d.dmQ&fp=9135101d4e05ba09&biw=1024&bih=677 If it was inappropriate joke its up to you to decide. Today news: older step brother drop the .22 caliber handgun and dozen rounds of ammunition into his little step brother book bag http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/nyregion/gun-found-in-childs-backpack-at-queens-elementary-school.html?_r=0 Its all seems like a http://occupywallst.org/forum/its-bullshit/

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3158) 1 year ago

'Throughout its history, the NRA has portrayed itself as an advocate for individual gun owner's Second Amendment rights. But a new investigation finds the group has come to rely on the support of the $12-billion a year gun industry - made up of firearms and ammunition manufacturers and sellers. Since 2005, the NRA has collected as much as $38.9 million from dozens of gun industry giants, including Beretta USA, Glock, and Sturm, Ruger & Co., according to a 2011 study by the Violence Policy Center.' - from

http://www.nationofchange.org/behind-nra-s-money-gun-lobby-deepens-financial-ties-12-billion-firearms-industry-1358354431

Semi-automatic assault rifles are killing machines! This is NOT what the Second Amendment was about! Never Give Up On Reason! Occupy The Issues!

[-] -3 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

You so funny. No military in the world would be interested in what you call "assault rifles". Congratulations though to you gunhate nutters / constitution haters, you've successfully pulled a Breitbart and stolen a march on us constitutionalists -- you've been able to chose the terms (i.e., chose the battlefield) even if it required being intellectually dishonest.

I don't know what your motive is. I don't know if you are a globalist, a fascist or simply a stupid doctrinaire liberal who can't see past his own nose.

The curtain of tyranny is settling over the country (NDAA, etc.) -- the Nazis are on the march and you want only the Nazis and their house slaves to own guns -- amazing, simply amazing.

[-] 4 points by Ache4Change (3158) 1 year ago

Put The Gun-Barrel-Crack-Pipe Down Bro'! This country has long been usurped by war mongers and fascists! They want us to be lonely and frightened of each other with our guns instead of us all getting our pitchforks and coming for them! Your poster-name says it all I suppose! Go Get A Clue and Peace!

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Pitchforks? You're delusional.

If the 2nd Amendment isn't important, why are all you government paid posters in such a lather about it?

Besides in this day and age the right to bear arms is about defense, not offense.

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn: “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3158) 1 year ago

Pitchforks v The Completely Corporate Controlled Government is FAR better than guns in our homes frightened of our neighbors! You think that I'm a 'government paid poster' and then call me 'delusional'?

Do you think your guns guarantee anything other than the fact that you can kill yourself or others? You are blind to your addiction and deluded into thinking you are free, so sit quietly and reflect on that.

Solzhenitsyn wrote 'The Gulag Archipelago' and so consider - http://www.nationofchange.org/torture-trivial-1358606536 - do you think your guns prevent or protect us from this?

Go Get A Clue and Stop Occupying Your Ass With Your Head!

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Maybe because of performances/interviews like this. Watch him huff and puff to put himself in the required frame of mind. He didn't seem to think the cameras were rolling yet. Can you say actor? How about bad actor?

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/sandy-hook-shooting-robbie-parker-performance/

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

these kind of wild theories discredit credible ones.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Here is a link I found that sheds some light on the "Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theory". It is true or not - you decide

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/sandy-hook-ripdonation-webpages-created-before-the-massacre/

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

demand a plan:

http://www.youtube.com/user/maigcoalition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Za8SOVuGHs&list=UUu4Q7iE0z1Jw7yUjs56dvXA&index

=1

alex jones – without his straight jacket!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg&feature=endscreen&NR=1

WRITE CONGRESS:

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm
VP Joe Biden, Gun Panel, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, Washington DC 20006


Dear ............................:

[ _ Y.O.U.R...I.N.T.R.O...H.E.R.E_ ]

While some people may want to confiscate guns, here is a much more feasable approach. It will

not solve all gun problems, but it will reduce the number of guns and will reduce the number of

dangerous people who have access to guns - and isn't THAT our real goal?

Please consider advocating these four steps below to help America with our gun disasters:

My proposal - for a NATIONAL gun law for all guns & owners:
My four points are SIMPLY based on seeing a logical parallel between cars & guns.

1
all gun owners must be licensed & tested with all guns they own and pass a written test.

if you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car - you are tested in each
a written gun test - to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws
being forced to know the law - via the test - means the police know who you are -
and you may be less likely to commit a crime

2
every year, you must prove that you have gun liability insurance &
be background checked and prove that your gun is properly locked when not used.

insurance should be at least as high as car insurance [ I would like at least $1,000,000 ]
you must prove your car insurance
annual back ground check to verify your suitability to own guns
every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock

3
as the owner of a gun, you are legally responsible for what is done with it.

you are required to report if your gun is missing within 48 hours
the owner will be much less likely to leave a gun accessible to a family member or thief

4
every gun must be registered and tested & a sample fired bullet stored by the police

knowing that your gun & its bullets are so easily traced will make you think before using it

peripherally-

Gun fees should be high enough to create a very substantial gun buy-back program

Penalties must be very high in money & jail time - especially after the first offense

No citizens ( except dealers & real collectors ) need more than a small number of guns

Gun fees should be higher for more guns.

The nra fighting against this - will be balanced by the insurance companies fighting for it

But the nra may be in favor of this when the gun companies understand that a gun owner
can get paid to turn in their old gun and will be able to buy a new gun -
with an INTEGRATED lock .

If we legalize drugs, we will clear out jail cells to fill with gun law breakers and
free up police "time" for real crime investigation

I am fundamentally NOT opposed to confiscation, but we WILL get higher compliance
and lower opposition if we use high fees & buyback. Take a position of reducing guns,
like assault weapons such as semi-automatic rifles -
rather than punishing a gun nut who spent $10,000 on an armory.



Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000: America: 88,880 guns owned ; 2.97 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: England…: 6,200 guns owned ; 0.07 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned ; 0.14 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned ; 0.51 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: France…..: 31,000 guns owned ; 0.06 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned ; 0.08 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned ; 0.90 homicides Per 100,000


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2012/rft-annual-tr

end-and-demographic-tables-2011-12.xls
The above link is to England police statistics - see table D19

Is the nra claiming that we will fail wher England & Australia succeeded :


Clearly the number of guns adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially

strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England

The USA 1994 gun "ban" did not ban assault weapons.
It banned the MANUFACTURE of assault weapons.
That is why so many people are buying AR15s before "Obama bans guns"

Scalia - yes that Scalia has indicated the AR15s are NOT protected by Article2

I learned yesterday that LBJ proposed a gun plan similar to the above letter's plan

[-] 1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

The reason the dress would be seen in these photos is that they are just that stupid.

[-] 1 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

We have to be certain my friend

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Need some more? I have a lot more.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5866) 1 year ago

Bring it on. I appriciate your posts in balancing out the issues. I only wish I could've fully gotten both articles into the same post to show the amount of crazy that has arisen in response to this issue.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Great. I'll be back in a bit and then line 'em up.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

MACHIAS, Maine (NEWS CENTER) -- Washington County Sheriff Donnie Smith says he will be the first Sheriff in Maine to publicly call for an assault weapons ban in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shootings.

"I certainly believe in the Constitution and like I said Second Amendment, but the right to bear arms isn't all arms and it doesn't give us the right to have firepower in our backyards or nuclear weapons or a SCUD missile and some common sense has to play into this and it's time that we do have an assault weapons ban," Said smith. http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article/225481/2/Washington-County-Sheriff-calls-for-Assault-Weapons-Ban

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Dakota County Sheriff Dave Bellows said today that he supports a ban on the sale of high-capacity assault weapons.

"I believe in the second amendment,” Bellows told Patch this morning, three weeks to the day after the Newtown, Conn., massacre in which 20 children were killed. “I’ve signed, over the years, 9,000 permits to carry" firearms.

“But does the second amendment extend all the way to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines?" Bellows asked. "I don’t think it does.” http://eagan.patch.com/articles/dakota-county-sheriff-calls-for-ban-on-high-capacity-assault-weapons

[-] 0 points by LeoYo (5866) 1 year ago

To answer Sheriff Bellows, I would say yes, the second amendment does extend all the way to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. It was written over 200 years ago with civil defense, and the ability to kill as many of the enemy as you possibly can, not personal self-defense, in mind. Since the War of 1812, it has been made obsolete by a permanent standing army and comparatively low level of state militia enlistment. The times have changed and with it the intended purpose of the 2nd amendment. People want a right to instruments exclusively designed for the purpose of inflicting death without the civic responsibility of ensuring the security of a free state. Such a desire is not supported by the written intent of the 2nd amendment. Such a desire is not in patriotic support of the United States Constitution. On the contrary, such a desire is in direct opposition to the patriotic responsibility of ensuring the security of a free state.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5866) 1 year ago

Sheriffs, state lawmakers push back on gun control

By JEFF BARNARD | Associated Press – 7 hrs ago

http://news.yahoo.com/sheriffs-state-lawmakers-push-back-gun-control-100605550.html

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — From Oregon to Mississippi, President Barack Obama's proposed ban on new assault weapons and large-capacity magazines struck a nerve among rural lawmen and lawmakers, many of whom vowed to ignore any restrictions — and even try to stop federal officials from enforcing gun policy in their jurisdictions.

"A lot of sheriffs are now standing up and saying, 'Follow the Constitution,'" said Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, whose territory covers the timbered mountains of southwestern Oregon. But their actual powers to defy federal law are limited. And much of the impassioned rhetoric amounts to political posturing until — and if — Congress acts.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said Wednesday it's unlikely an assault weapons ban would actually pass the House of Representatives. Absent action by Congress, all that remains are 23 executive orders Obama announced that apply only to the federal government, not local or state law enforcement.

Gun advocates have seen Obama as an enemy despite his expression of support for the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a personal right to have guns. So his call for new measures — including background checks for all gun buyers and Senate confirmation of a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — triggered new vows of defiance.

In Mississippi, Gov. Phil Bryant, a Republican, urged the Legislature to make it illegal to enforce any executive order by the president that violates the Constitution.

"If someone kicks open my door and they're entering my home, I'd like as many bullets as I could to protect my children, and if I only have three, then the ability for me to protect my family is greatly diminished," Bryant said. "And what we're doing now is saying, 'We're standing against the federal government taking away our civil liberties.'"

Tennessee Republican state Rep. Joe Carr wants to make it a state crime for federal agents to enforce any ban on firearms or ammunition. Carr instead called for more armed guards at schools. "We're tired of political antics, cheap props of using children as bait to gin up emotional attachment for an issue that quite honestly doesn't solve the problem," Carr said.

Legislative proposals to pre-empt new federal gun restrictions also have arisen in Wyoming, Utah and Alaska.

A Wyoming bill specifies that any federal limitation on guns would be unenforceable. It also would make it a state felony for federal agents to try to enforce restrictions.

"I think there are a lot of people who would want to take all of our guns if they could," said co-sponsor Rep. Kendell Kroeker, a Republican. "And they're only restrained by the opposition of the people, and other lawmakers who are concerned about our rights." Republican state Sen. Larry Hicks credited Wyoming's high rate of gun ownership for a low rate of gun violence.

"Our kids grow up around firearms, and they also grow up hunting, and they know what the consequences are of taking a life," Hicks said. "We're not insulated from the real world in Wyoming."

In Utah, some Republicans are preparing legislation to exempt the state from federal gun laws — and fine any federal agents who try to seize guns. A bill in the Alaska House would make it a misdemeanor for a federal agent to enforce new restrictions on gun ownership.

While such proposals are eye-catching, they likely could never be implemented.

"The legislature can pass anything it wants," said Sam Kamin, a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. "The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes that clearly unconstitutional. Where there's a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme."

Kamin and other legal experts said such disdain of Obama's proposals is reminiscent of former Confederate states' refusal to comply with federal law extending equal rights for blacks after the Civil War.

The National Sheriff's Association has supported administration efforts to combat gun violence after the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings. President Larry Amerson, sheriff of Calhoun, Ala., said he understands the frustrations of people in rural areas with the federal government. But he feels his oath of office binds him to uphold all laws.

"Any sheriff who knows his duty knows we don't enforce federal law, per se," said Amerson, a longtime firearms instructor and hunter.

Some rural sheriffs view the federal government as an adversary, with gun ownership at the core of that belief.

In Minnesota, Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole sent an open letter to residents saying he did not believe the federal government had the right to tell the states how to regulate firearms. He said he would refuse to enforce any federal mandate he felt violated constitutional rights.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, based in Fredericksburg, Texas, encourages that point of view. Founder Richard Mack, a former sheriff of Apache County, Ariz., speaks regularly at gatherings of Tea Party groups and gun rights organizations.

"I will tell Mr. Obama and everybody else who wants to impose gun control in America, that whether you like it or not, it is against the law," said Mack. "Now we have good sheriffs who are standing up and defending the law against our own president."


Associated Press writers Nicholas Riccardi in Denver, Ben Neary in Cheyenne, Wyo., Erik Schelzig in Nashville, Tenn., John O'Connor in Springfield, Ill., Amy Forliti in Minneapolis and Emily Wagster Pettus in Jackson, Miss., contributed to this report.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Phoenixville’s mayor, police chief take stance on gun control

“Personally, I don’t see it,” Mossman said Thursday in a phone interview.

Mossman said he is by no means against people lawfully having firearms.

“My own, personal view, I really believe the citizens have a right to keep and bare their arms,” Mossman said. “I believe that. I can tell you my mother has a handgun. I would hate for my mother or wife to not be able to defend themselves.”

In addition to defense, Mossman said he believes people should have weapons to use in the act of hunting or target shooting.

“This country was born and raised on hunting,” he said. “There are people that are just target enthusiasts and they should have to the weapons to do that.”

However, what kinds of weapons are used for that is where Mossman takes pause.

“The question that comes to mind is, ‘Should people have machine guns with 60-round magazines to target practice or to hunt?’” Mossman said. “My answers is (that) that’s not necessary. These are guns that are basically borrowed from the military that have a whole lot of ammunition to kill a whole lot.”

Scoda seems to fall on the same line as Mossman on weapons with large capacity magazines.

“These are made for nothing else except killing people and I think we have to start speaking out about this,” he said. http://www.dailylocal.com/article/20130113/NEWS01/130119836/phoenixville-s-mayor-police-chief-take-stance-on-gun-control#full_story

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

San Diego Police Chief Supports Greater Gun Regulation http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/jan/15/san-diego-police-chief-talks-guns/

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

LANSING, MI -- Gun-control reforms outlined by President Barack Obama on Wednesday would make Lansing safer, according to Police Chief Teresa Szymanski. http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2013/01/lansing_police_chief_we_would.html

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

NEWTOWN, Conn. – Police Chief Michael Kehoe has a message for the White House: “Ban assault weapons, restrict those magazines that have so many bullets in them, shore up any loopholes in our criminal background checks,” he said in an exclusive interview with NBC News. http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/13/16496402-newtown-police-chief-adds-voice-to-call-for-assault-weapons-ban?lite

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

NEW ORLEANS -- Superintendent Ronal Serpas announced that he supports President Barack Obama's push to re-impose the ban on assault weapons. The NOPD police chief said the ban would forbid domestic gun manufacturers from producing semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, except for police or military use. The International Association of Chiefs of Police says the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes fell by 66 percent during the 10 years when the assault weapons ban was in effect

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/louisiana-news/new-orleans-news/item/262384-serpas-announces-support-of-assault-weapon-ban

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/1/15/demings_nelson_gun_c.html

Orange County Sheriff Jerry Demings said he also supports getting assault weapons off the streets. Demings stood by Sen. Nelson in Orlando Tuesday as he showed the media some of the weapons taken off the streets in Orange County, guns the sheriff said were similar to those used in mass shootings across the country.

Nelson, D-Fla., encouraged parents to put the pressure on lawmakers.

"Guns like these and clips like those are for killing, not hunting," he said.

Nelson said as an avid hunter, he owns several guns, himself, but would support a ban on assault weapons. He also said he wants to see universal background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazine clips.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Make up your own minds, Sandy Hook timeline: http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/01/06/sandy-hook-school-massacre-timeline/

Nice try Leo. Benjamin Radford is an information warfare disseminator.

To understand today's world it is necessary to comprehend false flag attacks, information warfare, control fraud.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Quincy Police Chief on Gun Control

As Quincy's police chief he says gun violence isn't new - but the availibility of assault weapons and armor has made it harder for them to fight.

http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/Quincy-Police-Chief-on-Gun-Control-186104152.html

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Hey - GF - G-Day

It is funny how much energy can be pumped into basically meaningless side issues rather then to address the real ills of society that drive the growth in violence - Hey?

Treating symptoms rather then causes - sounds like the medical industry.

[-] 1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

With their treatment you get more symptoms and/or causes well more Rx's for sure. Do they give everyone numerous pills to continue taking as long as it takes til they kill them in the name of healing Yikes

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Hey back at you.

Yep. But, if this is the way that we are going to play it then let's roll.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Sure - toss out ideas that do not hurt - and could eventually help in the long run - but then also address the cause of the cancers. Perhaps it may - with repetition - open some eyes to realization?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

It should open eyes that for every little article where the little NRA folks think they have something- there are another 15 that state otherwise.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It should open some eyes that side issues are presented for attention rather then the main causes of such infections in the body of society.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

That has already been done, no?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Wash Lather Rinse Repeat {:-])

For those stubborn stains - SHOUT IT OUT.

[-] -1 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

Americans are addicted to conspiracy theories, that's why. They escape the difficult position of tackling real problems by venturing into the world of conspiracy theory fantasy.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

Well these theories are a good excuse and maybe even necessary for without them people would have to face just how serious the situation and it is more than they can handle Understandably so but this may just be those people around me personally though if there are so many it may be such for others also or just my imagination. No because my imagination see happy people holding hands and dancing.

[-] 0 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

You already have religion and Hollywood. Do you really need more fantasy?

[-] 0 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

My imagination (fantasy you say) is preferable at this point than what any other options seem to offer. I was born with it and would not wish it away it is the best thing we have going all things considered and that is not because it comes through me it is just the way things are.

[-] -1 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

Imagination and fantasy are wonderful when you can tell them apart from reality. It's a problem when you use imagination instead of logic and science to explain a real world event like 9/11 because you end up accusing people based on your fantasy. Use your imagination and fantasy to create art and entertainment, use logic and proper journalism to explain the world around you. In this way, you will be able to solve real problems. The problem is the line between reality and fiction has been blurred in US. Because of this, it's very hard to solve real problems.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

You intellectually challenged or dishonest scaredy cats should at least have the opportunity to consider these "wild" conspiracy theories yourselves.

So the points in these links are all nonsense? Most of the questions brought up have been left open, as far as I know (I don't endorse or nonendorse any of these sites):

"They Shoot Children, Don’t They?" http://www.zengardner.com/they-shoot-children-dont-they/

"THE CONNECTICUT SCHOOL SHOOTINGS: OPERATION CHAOS" http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/the-connecticut-school-shootings-operation-chaos/

"Sandy Hook Shooting: Victims Killed with Rifle Found in Car – Who Put it There? The Guy Arrested in the Woods?" http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/sandy-hook-shooting-victims-killed-with-rifle-found-in-car-suspect-could-not-have-gotten-back-to/

"Connecticut massacre, two shooters? Look to Aurora, Colorado" http://www.sott.net/article/254774-Connecticut-massacre-two-shooters-Look-to-Aurora-Colorado

Agenda Prevails Over Truth, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info /article33472.htm

Have at em, or not. Factual beliefs are actually emotionally driven -- but it's hard to reach the emotional base of truth denialism.

[-] -1 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

If you enjoy a life of delusions that's fine by me. However, I think the Occupy Movement should deal with real world issues.

So the points in these links are all nonsense?

Yes.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Really now? I thought the Occupy Movement was dedicated to the truth, wherever it led.

[-] -2 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

Conspiracy theories don't lead to truths, they lead to delusions. I believe Occupy should base its information acquisition through the means of serious journalism which is the art of using proper research methods. Conspiracy theories are wonderful as a form of entertainment, but, at the end of the day, we need to be talking about real problems in the real world, not the fantasy created by conspiracy theorists using bad research methods. When I'm tired at the end of the day I'll listen to the ramblings of conspiracy theorists, but it's only for a good laugh. Important, but not what Occupy should be about.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

I doubt you've even read any of the non-MSM Sandy Hook investigatory pieces. The official narrative, the MSM story has more holes than swiss cheese.

Who was the person on film picked up in the woods, saying he didn't do it? Didn't do what? -- how could he have known what just happened inside the school. The last I heard the Bushmaster was in the car, the patsy Adam Lanza was found dead with two handguns. I could go on and on.

I don't give the lying newsliars of the corpoRAT owned so-called free media the credence I'd give a wino lying in the gutter snoring in his own vomit.

[-] 0 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

I don't bother reading what conspiracy theorists write because it's very bad journalism. They don't gather evidence to build their case, what they do is use coincidences, speculation, misdirection, etc... to attack the official theory. They are like creationists who instead of accumulating evidence to form a strong theory of their own try to find holes in the Theory of Evolution. Don't read conspiracy theorists, it's like junk food for your brain. Challenge yourself, try critical thinking, science, proper journalism, etc... Stick to conspiracy theories for what they were meant, empty entertainment.

[+] -5 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

only dedicated to the" truth "if it fits their agenda.

[-] 0 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

Like any other group in the political sphere.

[+] -4 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

not quite, ows is totally intolerant of any dissent from their hard line agenda. you will be villified.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

When did lying become dissent?

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

who lied about what?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You, about numerous things.

Far too many to enumerate here.

Try reading some of your comments on the constitution and of government in general.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

go ahead, give it a try. be specific. my comments about the constitution are correct.

[-] -1 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

Marxists are always like that. It's part of the game.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Vail Police Chief Dwight Henninger Monday told the Vail Business Journal that he favors reinstating a federal ban on assault weapons similar to the ordinance currently on the books in Vail.

“I truly believe this is a 20-year issue,” Henninger said. “Even if tomorrow we were to ban all new assault-rifle sales, we would still be dealing with these for a very long time. Why not start today? How many more Newtown type events do we need to have before we can make a decision that this isn’t what we need in our communities?”

http://www.vailbusinessjournal.com/article.php?id=7940

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

We’re talking about weapons that are made for war,” said Detroit Police Chief Ralph Godbee. “An AK-47 is a Russian-made weapon that is made for war. An AR-15, which is an answer to the AK-47 . . . these high-capacity [guns] . . . you can shoot 50 to 60 rounds within a minute. Within a minute you can literally shoot through brick, shoot through steel.”

Speaking at a news conference with Rep. John Conyers and myself, Chief Godbee expressed dismay that there has been no action to revive the assault-weapons ban that was allowed to expire in 2004 when George W. Bush was president. http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/14125395-452/police-chiefs-are-right-ban-assault-weapons.html

[-] -1 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

the gunman left the machine gun at the parking lot

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Not the point.