And just look at the mess laying around...
Oh, well. Just have to clean it up as best we can...
Re the Sandy Hook massacre...
I suppose it was really just a matter of time. Whenever there's a disaster and there's any ambiguity as to the cause, you're going to be getting nutters. Truthers, Conspiracy Theorists, or whatever - they're annoying as all get out at worst, slightly amusing at best. ("Steel doesn't melt in fire!" ring any bells for anyone?)
And the Sandy Hook massacre isn't exempt. Apparently there were enough 'discrepancies' in the accounts to cause a Florida Atlantic University Professor of Communications to think that there's some question that the shooting even took place -
"While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place — at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation's news media have described."Needless to say, FAU's disavowed any responsibility for what he's saying- and I sure can't say I blame them.
And to bump up the score, he's also got doubts about the Kennedy Assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, and the shooting in Aurora, Colorado.
Nice to see he's versatile...
Now, one of the reasons why he was so skeptical of it all is that things just don't add up, re statements of witnesses, things being released and then later retracted, and so on.
But I don't see them as being immediate signs of a conspiracy. Are there things that aren't adding up? In a case like this, there always are. Traumatic situations mess with the mind, and there were a lot of people and a lot of minds to be messed with. But to take such things and immediately conclude there's a conspiracy is off-the-wall, in my opinion.
Which brings me to the SECOND thing.
Adam Lanza. By all accounts, the guy was out there, barely able to function. Home schooled, constantly supervised, about to (maybe) be committed because he couldn't function and his mother couldn't help - and there's not a word about whether he was on any sort of psychiatric medication?
Apparently almost all of the mass murderers in the last 20-30 years have either been on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (like Luvox, Paxil, Zoloft) or had recently stopped taking them. Is that the connection between them all, the common factor which sparks mass murder? Apparently there's about a 4% chance of violent tendencies while taking - and when you STOP taking them there's a real chance for problems until the body gets used to not having them controlling serotonin any more.
So there you have it. One nutter, thinking the whole thing was somehow staged. And one other who's saying - "Hey, just wait a sec. There's something missing..."
And that he's writing on WND doesn't invalidate the question. IF SSRIs are implicated in mass murders (note the big 'IF') - wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on THAT aspect before trying to restrict the law-abiding through more anti-gun legislation? Because by what's documented, it looks like that stuff's caused a whole lot of grief over the years its been used.
Well, it's just a thought, anyway. But the proximate cause (easy availability of firearms) doesn't seem to be the main driver of the problem. Perhaps it's time to look at other causes.