Tragedy At Newtown Never Happened

[Kip Powick]

The US has spawned another group of NutBars that are adament that " Newton" never happened.

It was just another government conspiracy

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1315744--latest-conspiracy-theory-claims-newtown-school-massacre-a-hoax

[AME]

But the latest conspiracy movement seems custom-made to underscore the need for a national debate on mental illness.

[chockalicious]

Reading stuff like this is depressing, 9-11 truthers, Birthers, etc are all nuts. It is a shame that they get any media.

[J.O.]

I somehow got an email from these nut bars the other day. As tempted as I was to send them an "are you kidding me?" reply, I decided it was best to ignore such lame stupidity. If you don't grease a squeaky wheel it eventually stops turning altogether.

[Don Hudson]

Or, in that one month, about 3 to 4 fully-loaded B747's going in, in the U.S. except in the gun case there is no accountability.

[J.O.]

Exactly Don. Imagine how the Republicans would respond if those were a couple of aircraft accidents on US soil. They'd be out for blood.

[inchman]

While we're drawing parallels, this is equivalent to almost four 9/11s every year.

None is so blind as he who will not see.

[Kip Powick]

While we're drawing parallels, this is equivalent to almost four 9/11s every year.

None is so blind as he who will not see.

No comparison, unless you are talking about just plain old "deaths"

The horror of 911 happened in one day and was beyond anyone's imagination.....death by firearms and even auto accidents are common place deaths, if we can catagorize any death as " common place".

If all you are doing is comparing body counts....well OK.

[inchman]

I suppose I am comparing body counts, but the wasted irony is that the US has spent hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of more lives to prevent the potential deaths of another few hundred in another probably-not-preventable-occurrence of an attack on US soil, while they have an internal situation in which, completely predictably, every 100 days or so, about the same number of people who died in 9/11 will die at the hands of their own people, all for want of reasonable laws surrounding gun ownership and use that seem to work in every other civilized country in the world.

[DEFCON]

I was watching a news show the other night regarding the number of US gun deaths. I can't say I was really surprised to learn that 80-85% of these deaths are related to gang-bangers shooting gang-bangers. Is that a great loss?

I know little of the Sandy Hook conspiracy allegations and nutters will be nutters, but is it wrong for people to ask questions, or should they blindly accept & rely upon the truth as determined by Anderson Cooper, CNN & Time Warner?

[Peter Gill]

And in that time, how many homicides were committed with so-called "assault rifles" as opposed to knives, bats, clubs and no weapons at all. As well, how many intended victims successfully defended themselves through the presence of firearms?

[J.O.]

A conspiracy of such magnitude is impossible in a world where instant information is available. To question the very truth of the tragedy of Sandy Hook is ridiculous and disingenuous. It's an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue and nothing more.

[DEFCON]

Hey Malcolm

Do you remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident that brought the US into the Viet Nam war? It took 40 years, but the truth finally emerged; it was a false flag event, which was intended to achieve a purpose, and it did. Over half a million young Americans and countless others lost their lives to serve the misguided ambitions of others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin

We have a duty to ourselves to ask questions.

[J.O.]

Different time, not even close to comparable.

[Don Hudson]

DEFCON;

We don't need to ask ourselves questions, but to merely work harder at seeing what is already in plain view.

In any case, how broadly, and where do you wish to go with that argument? We deeply deplore all unnecessary deaths under circumstances but especially those which are under the direction and control of the state, no matter where. But such acts of compassion and action are not mutually exclusive with a primordial horror of what occurs to a country's own citizens by their own hand - the topic under examination here and just about everywhere right now is, "The Politics of Gun Control".

I would, and can, take up an argument for holding the state and the state's leaders accountable for numerous military interventions and abroad, going back well before Tonkin and continuing, under Obama and the other NRA, the Pentagon, today. Take a look at William Blum's, "Killing Hope" site if you wish a depressing history of murderous interventions by the state.

The United States does not support nor does it recognize the World Court in The Hague for, in the US' eyes, very good reasons, for some of their leaders would be open to the threat of an "appearance" and possibly worse, before this world body, for decisions and actions carried out in the name of "democracy and freedom" - the invasion of Iraq being one such action; there are hundreds of others - the record is completely open to the public scrutiny.

In what may be called "genocide" under a politic which is permitted to see such actions for what they really are, millions of innocent people lost their lives under such false and otherwise illusory justifications. J.O. is right - such atrocities are not comparable. Heinous though they may be, they are carried out in the shadow of "national security" whereas citizens openly and without meaningful interference from the state murdering one another is not only not in the shadows it is brutally televised for all to watch.

Gun murders are immediately amenable to state control, if the state wanted to control such social phenomenon. On the other side of the depressing argument, the NRA claims, under the Second Amendment, it wants nothing less than equal force to that which is possessed by the U.S. government. For some this is a normal and practical wish. I think that such a goal, in it's whimsical perception of possibility, is the very definition of insanity.

[DEFCON]

Don

I agree with most of what you say, but all our opinions are just that, opinion. Free men can agree to disagree.

My reference to the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a directed response to Malcolm's comment; "Same nutbars also believe that 9/11 didn't happen or was a put up job by the US Government.". I suspect that anyone claiming the US government could initiate a war that would kill over half-a-million of its own youth would have been considered a 'nutbar' prior to the emergence of the truth. 911 could very well be an inside job; not one of government, but one hatched by persons of influence & power that just don't give a damn for their fellow man, let alone fellow citizen.

[DEFCON]

PS:

Michigan announced today that it was attempting to get Remington Arms to relocate to Michigan. It's the intention of the State to produce guns within, sell them to residents and regulate said firearms themselves. Their purpose; to legally get the Feds out of affairs exclusive to the State.

[DEFCON]

Another PS:

"J.O. is right - such atrocities are not comparable. Heinous though they may be, they are carried out in the shadow of "national security" whereas citizens openly and without meaningful interference from the state murdering one another is not only not in the shadows it is brutally televised for all to watch."

This one comment is the source of my disagreement and for the record; I wasn’t making a comparison; JO made his own.

The 'shadow of national security' is in fact brutal, dishonest, televised and if we consider the cost to the innocents, far worse than noting the fact that gang-bangers killings of each other accounts for 80 + % of reported gun murder / deaths in the US.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t find sympathy for those that seek to engage in gang activities. To me; they are vermin and their self extermination programs are something the rest of us should appreciate.

[inchman]

I am all for allowing gang members to self-exterminate.

Two issues.

• They haven't seem to have accomplished that goal, despite having most of the guns and few of the brains.
• Inevitable collateral murder, such as is suspected in yesterday's death of a Brampton 9 year old as a result of being shot while sitting in his own house watching TV.

And Peter .... having a gun in the house would not have prevented that young boy from being shot.

[DEFCON]

• "They haven't seem to have accomplished that goal, despite having most of the guns and few of the brains."

Yes it's unfortunate, but an indicator the state supported breeding programs are working well.

[Peter Gill]

a gun in the house would not have prevented that young boy from being shot

A sample size of one provides zero degrees of freedom and is hardly a basis for policy. Which of Obama's 23 proposed gun-control changes would have prevented it?

At the same time across the border:

US Congressional Research Service points out that firearms-related deaths among juveniles (defined as under 18) have over the past 20 years declined by slightly over 60% in a fairly consistent linear trend with homicides down 55% and accidents down almost 80%. Note this is based on numbers, not per-capita, with an increased juvenile population using per-capita results would indicate a lower death rate.

Something is having an effect on gun-related deaths in America. It wasn't the 1994 "assault-weapon" ban or the 2004 sunset of the same, DoJ & CDC separately concluded that had no effect. And it certainly isn't Piers Morgan-esque platitudes.

[inchman]

You are right that one incident does not create valid statistics. Neither does early conclusions.

It will take a long time for any gun control measures or laws to have any effect. For the DoJ and CDC to come to conclusions in the short term is just wrong science. But because it will take a long time, the NRA will be able to point to any law or measure and say "See... it's not working" and spend their millions to lobby to have it repealed.

I find it interesting that the "assault weapon" ban and the 2004 sunset were both in the last 20 years and that the reduction you describe happened in exactly that time frame..... as a matter of fact, the "fix" started almost exactly 20 years ago. Too bad they removed the cast before it had a truly long term effect. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't reverse direction unless the new measures have some teeth.

I'm not against guns for sport or hunting, but I will fight tooth and nail to help keep them off the streets. As long as they are on the streets in the US, in good or bad hands, they will make their way onto the streets here, into bad hands.

[Peter Gill]

Neither does early conclusions (sic)

Utterly nonsensical: how does any conclusion create a statistic?

It will take a long time for any gun control measures or laws to have any effect

Why? Support that with evidence or research. Gun control advocates point to purported rapid success of laws in Australia and Great Britain, are they wrong?

For the DoJ and CDC to come to conclusions in the short term is just wrong science

There's a new height of arrogance. How could the US DoJ, with access to information from every police and criminal justice organization in America, and CDC, with access to virtually every death certificate and coroner's report in America, possibly conduct quality research on the subject. Not like they're experts or anything like that. After all, you, with zero data and zero research must know more than they.

as a matter of fact, the "fix" started almost exactly 20 years ago

What evidence do you have to support this premise? I used a 20-year span because my CRS 7-5700 reference did. Did you bother to look at any other datasets that go further back, such as CDC to 1981, Lott to 1977, Nat'l Centre for Health Stats to 1940? Of course you didn't, easier to pretend than do the work.

I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't reverse direction unless the new measures have some teeth.

Why? Gun homicide has continued to decline after the expiry of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, without any "new measures." What sudden impetus are you surprisingly aware of that will change that?

[inchman]

We can all find data that supports our point of view.

Why? Support that with evidence or research. Gun control advocates point to purported rapid success of laws in Australia and Great Britain, are they wrong?

I did find this to be particularly funny, though. To suggest that the gun problem in Great Britain ever was anywhere near the problem it is in the US is nothing short of hilarious.

[mo32a]

Utterly nonsensical: how does any conclusion create a statistic?

Why? Support that with evidence or research. Gun control advocates point to purported rapid success of laws in Australia and Great Britain, are they wrong?

There's a new height of arrogance. How could the US DoJ, with access to information from every police and criminal justice organization in America, and CDC, with access to virtually every death certificate and coroner's report in America, possibly conduct quality research on the subject. Not like they're experts or anything like that. After all, you, with zero data and zero research must know more than they.

What evidence do you have to support this premise? I used a 20-year span because my CRS 7-5700 reference did. Did you bother to look at any other datasets that go further back, such as CDC to 1981, Lott to 1977, Nat'l Centre for Health Stats to 1940? Of course you didn't, easier to pretend than do the work.

Why? Gun homicide has continued to decline after the expiry of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, without any "new measures." What sudden impetus are you surprisingly aware of that will change that?

Is it possible for you to make your (well researched) points without belittling the other posters?