Sandy Hook/Aurora shooting conspiracies

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by pr0xyt0xin, Jan 28, 2013.

  1. pr0xyt0xin Registered Member

    Messages:
    16
    I understand this was very recent and I don't mean to offend. But a couple people I know have been making claims regarding these shootings being put into place by the US Government to forward political agendas. For example but not limited to, gun control. The story goes, Adam Lanza and James Holmes could be patsies hired to rally Americans for or against a common cause. Has anyone heard anything about this? Or perhaps any other conspiracies regarding these shootings?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Never heard it, but I'm not surprised. Conspiracy theorists tend to be idiots, and it wouldn't occur to them that banning certain kinds of weapons wouldn't be worth the lives of so many children. Just as the 9/11 Truther morons don't seem to grasp that there are other ways to stage a terrorist attack besides killing 3,000+ American civilians, the troglodytes responsible for this theory aren't intellectually capable of anything more than gross generalizations. (ie It's "convenient" that this tragedy resulted in a gun control push)

    If you value at all the opinion of others, particularly others' opinions of you, I suggest keeping this one to yourself.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. pr0xyt0xin Registered Member

    Messages:
    16
    I'll say I personally don't buy it. The most I can say is that I entertained the idea with a "what if" scenario. But I generally like to keep my mind that open about most things. The facts and the common sense still point to the obvious. Those people were psychopaths and mental health/firearm access are the only culprits.

    My opinion on the matter of gun control is actually very dispassionate.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I think there needs to be some level of gun control, particularly waiting periods and background checks, but I'm beginning to come down against outright bans. Our leaders need to fear us, they need to know that we can kill them if it comes to that.
     
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    I against outright bans simple because they have no practical chance of passing, that and universal registration and track of guns should do more to reduce gun crime the banning just a few kinds of guns.
     
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    There already was an outright ban. Well, it was a ban on manufacturing new weapons and purchasing/owning ones from abroad after a certain date. I think they'll probably aim to do a bit more this time around.
     
  10. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    You need new friends; those guys are douche bags, insane or both.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    There are elections every two years, you know. I don't think you'll need to kill your leaders.
     
  12. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    There are elections every couple of years in Iran, as well. Pretty sure somebody there needs to die before those people are free.
     
  13. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Bit paranoid, aren't we? I have WAY more fear about some asshole with a gun than the goverment.
     
  14. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Not paranoid. I understand that the greater immediate threat is a lunatic with a gun. But you can't live in a totally free and totally safe society. One comes at the expense of the other. Not saying there aren't steps to be taken--I've already said as much--but I don't think a gun ban is the answer. I think our right to own weapons is more important than our personal safety.
     
  15. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Yeah but the assault rifles and such are only used for a very small percentage of crimes: unlicensed/unregistered/non-background checked guns are supposedly used for a majority of crimes. Thus if every gun soled in the USA had to be registered to an owner whose background was checked it would be harder for criminals and psychos to get guns.
     
  16. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I agree. I think the purpose of this ban (or attempted ban) is to try to prevent mass shootings like Sandy Hook. Obviously a skilled shooter can still tally high kill counts without an assault weapon, but it's doubtful that the twerp from Connecticut could have managed it without one. And it's easy to understand the reaction. I just don't agree that banning guns is beneficial. Yeah, it probably would stop those mass shootings, or at least greatly reduce their number, but I think there are ways to accomplish that without messing with our civil rights.
     
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    How many guns do we need to revolted against the government? Tunisa had 1/100th as many guns per person as we do, they revolted and overthrow their government in one mouth and all it took to start of was not a gun but one man pouring gasoline on ones self and lighting a match! Seriously how likely is that today's USA volunteer and heavily trained army would fire on their own citizens?

    Requiring that all guns be registered would not be messing with our civil rights, it would simply be and extension and closing of loop holes of existing gun policy.
     
  18. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    It's not the amount of guns I'm worried about, it's the type of guns. And I'd venture a guess that a US revolution would be a bit more difficult than a Tunisian one.

    I agree. I think gun registry is a good idea.
     
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Really, the US military would be willing to kill US civilians to institute marshal law?
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    They did during the Civil War.
     
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Unlikely, but they will send out the National Guard (well-regulated militia) to quell domestic insurrections, which was a major purpose of the 2nd amendment.
     
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    That was nearly 150 years ago! Things have changed since then a little: no more slavery, women given equal rights, fuck women in the military now!
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Definitely agreed. But the question was - would the US military would be willing to kill US civilians? And the definitions of military, US civilians and killing have not changed. You'd have to make a good story, of course; convince people that Georgia was plotting the overthrow of the government, and had already killed bunches of US troops (perhaps even some women!) But we did that once, and we could do it again. Hopefully, of course, we will not.
     

Share This Page