Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, MOST PEOPLE have no such fear of "uncoverning" information which may taint any political agenda. MOST ORDINARY CITIZENS do not have any such fear. I'd say that most people posting on CD do not have that kind of fear.
This was not a political campaign. It was a mass murder. You, as a member of the public, don't have a right to all the details of a mass murder that is still being investigated. The police have a right to withhold information while they are still investigating.
So if it's really bothering you and Kathryn so much, I don't understand why you two don't contact the reporters DIRECTLY and ask questions. Why are you complaining rather than taking action? Did it never occur to you to go directly to the source if you're seriously disturbed and concerned about it? Or is the real intent to just continue to try to sow seeds of doubt about "the media" and the government to those who are susceptible to such ideas and/or somewhat paranoid? This thread is obviously suggesting that there is some "secret" government/media conspiracy going on in re guns.
If you don't like the reporting of "facts" in this case, again, contact the various reporters. As I've pointed out previously, most reporters have email addresses posted at the web site of their employers. It's REALLY not that hard to find a way to contact them. However, I suspect that the real motive here has nothing to do with actually learning anything other than what has been reported so far.
Btw, Kathryn certainly seemed to be suggesting that everybody who was not questioning this particular incident must have something "wrong" with them because of a lack of critical thinking skills. That's a pretty broad generalization.
No need for ME to "sow seeds of doubt about the media." Those seeds of doubt have already been planted more and more deeply. It's called "spin." Gone are the days when families gathered around the TV to listen with complete faith to Walter Cronkite had to say.
BTW, I am well aware of your numerous suggestions to contact reporters. You don't need to continue repeat that suggestion, particularly with the implication that we should be following that advice INSTEAD of discussing the topic here. I have been engaging politely and respectfully in this thread, and this forum is here for precisely such discussions. I don't understand why you are so bothered that some of us are curious about the ways in which the SH reports don't make sense.
If you are not curious about it, that's fine. But just as I don't go into the forums that don't interest me, and tell people they should not be discussing the topic, I don't want others telling me to stop discussing a topic.
For what it's worth, when I've had people bring up the idea that there was some sort of vast conspiracy about this event, I've disagreed with them.
What I DO think is a possibility - and which I've clearly stated on this thread - is that our media and our government are not above skewering accounts of events, even to the point of exploiting children, to further whatever agenda happens to suit their fancy at the time. And when I say that, I am including both liberals and conservatives.
That's why I will continue to probe and research and ask questions that obviously make some people very uncomfortable.
AGAIN, how does "the media" and "our government" do this? Is it a coordinated effort? How does "the media" coordinate its efforts? You do realize that media outlets COMPETE with each other, don't you? Why in the world would they then somehow "agree" to and write the same things? Or why would they agree to NOT WRITE about an incident which the public was eager to read about? Competition is the key word.
Also, our government consists of hundreds and hundreds of PEOPLE, individuals, so saying "our government" does something to further its agenda, are you talking about Democratic and Republican officials, are you talking specifically about the White House, who/what are you talking about. "Our government" is far too broad a term to use, unless, of course, the intent is to further a political agenda which casts "our government" in the role of big, bad, evil entity. Now, who would do that?
In your continuing research and probing of this issue, have you yet contacted any reporters who reported on this story? If not, where are you researching for answers?
There is not one constitutional right being dismantled. Show me one single law-abiding individual who has had their gun confiscated because of this incident. Not all the paranoid people who fear the government is going to ban all guns and take their guns. One who has actually had this happen.
Even California legislator Dianne Feinstein who is introducing a bill to ban assault weapons in California is not proposing that it be retroactive, ie. that those guns will be taken from those who already own them.
I noticed you threw in the caveat "because of this incident" in order to avoid addressing the fact that the government has, in the past, confiscated firearms from law-abiding individuals in an unlawful manner. Most recently, there are the 1000+ firearms that were unlawfully confiscated from citizens of Louisiana during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
As for this incident, we do not yet know what the end result will be. Legislation has not yet been passed resulting from this tragedy, but the legislation that has been proposed is questionable, at best. Considering that this tragedy is supposedly the catalyst for the newly proposed legislation which could lead to some fairly sweeping changes in United States firearms laws, it seems reasonable for people who are concerned about such things to want to see some in-depth and accurate reporting on Sandy Hook.
I noticed you threw in the caveat "because of this incident" in order to avoid addressing the fact that the government has, in the past, confiscated firearms from law-abiding individuals in an unlawful manner. Most recently, there are the 1000 firearms that were unlawfully confiscated from citizens of Louisiana during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
As for this incident, we do not yet know what the end result will be. Legislation has not yet been passed resulting from this tragedy, but the legislation that has been proposed is questionable, at best. Considering that this tragedy is supposedly the catalyst for the newly proposed legislation which could lead to some fairly sweeping changes in United States firearms laws, it seems reasonable for people who are concerned about such things to want to see some in-depth and accurate reporting on Sandy Hook.
The Sandy Hook mass shooting was the last straw, but it was in no way the only reason that the White House came out with gun control recommendations. There are over 32,000 firearm deaths a year in this nation and many more injuries. If you don't want to count suicide, there are still about 13,000 gun homicides a year. That is over 1000 murders a month, many of them young people. If you care about people, you would care about making some changes in gun control so that this epidemic of violence was reduced.
If you only care about yourself and your guns, look at reducing gun violence as a way to reduce healthcare costs because the costs of gun violence in the U.S. run in the billions.
No need for ME to "sow seeds of doubt about the media." Those seeds of doubt have already been planted more and more deeply. It's called "spin." Gone are the days when families gathered around the TV to listen with complete faith to Walter Cronkite had to say.
BTW, I am well aware of your numerous suggestions to contact reporters. You don't need to continue repeat that suggestion, particularly with the implication that we should be following that advice INSTEAD of discussing the topic here. I have been engaging politely and respectfully in this thread, and this forum is here for precisely such discussions. I don't understand why you are so bothered that some of us are curious about the ways in which the SH reports don't make sense.
If you are not curious about it, that's fine. But just as I don't go into the forums that don't interest me, and tell people they should not be discussing the topic, I don't want others telling me to stop discussing a topic.
If you're so curious about this, why NOT "research" it further and go to the source? Or is it really more about gossiping on the Internet?? I'm not telling you that you shouldn't be discussing this topic; I'm offering suggestions as to how to answer your questions. Do you want answers or not? Discuss all you want. I'm offering my perspective on this incident as well as offering suggestions in re how to get even more information and more answers. Why not look under other rocks if it is so perplexing to you and you don't think the media reports make sense?
Whats even stranger is those that have done the killing are not gun nuts.........but all were exposed to prescription meds.
"All?"
Proof, please.
And how do you know they weren't gun nuts? Adam Lanza's mother was and her son had access to those guns. What is your proof that he wasn't a "gun nut" like his mother?
I'm not sure how anyone could say with a straight face that the Aurora theater killer was NOT a gun nut:
Quote:
Mr. Holmes purchased all of his weapons legally, law enforcement officials said. In the four months before the shootings, he also bought 3,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, 3,000 rounds for a semiautomatic rifle and 350 shells for a 12-guage shotgun, all over the Internet.
This was not a political campaign. It was a mass murder. You, as a member of the public, don't have a right to all the details of a mass murder that is still being investigated. The police have a right to withhold information while they are still investigating.
That's not how they do it on TV. They can wrap something like this up in an hour.
No need for ME to "sow seeds of doubt about the media." Those seeds of doubt have already been planted more and more deeply. It's called "spin." Gone are the days when families gathered around the TV to listen with complete faith to Walter Cronkite had to say.
BTW, I am well aware of your numerous suggestions to contact reporters. You don't need to continue repeat that suggestion, particularly with the implication that we should be following that advice INSTEAD of discussing the topic here. I have been engaging politely and respectfully in this thread, and this forum is here for precisely such discussions. I don't understand why you are so bothered that some of us are curious about the ways in which the SH reports don't make sense.
If you are not curious about it, that's fine. But just as I don't go into the forums that don't interest me, and tell people they should not be discussing the topic, I don't want others telling me to stop discussing a topic.
I said sow seed of doubt about the media AND the government, both. Who is it that sees "government" as the big, bad, ugly, evil that people should constantly fear?
I wasn't around when Walter Cronkite was reporting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
