Professor claims Sandy Hook massacre 'may not have happened' - Polidicks

Its a coping mechanism. You laugh to keep from crying whenever you can.

My father smiles when he's nervous. When discussing cruel circumstances, he smiles even though I know he's actually sad. It's really not strange at all.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;39181303]I saw that a week after the shooting and it's been confusing me ever since. Why would a father of a slain child be joking and laughing before a press interview, then seem to get into character when the cameras are actually on him?[/QUOTE] Sometimes it is hard to control your emotions directly after something very tragic hits you. You almost go into a bipolar state where you jump from happy to said very quickly. Not excusing his actions only stating that some peoples brains have a hard time separating emotions at a time like this. I really don't buy the whole this was staged thing. Media fucks all the fucking time on details, and this is no exception. They also all copy each other hinting at why some of the false or incorrect details might have been spread. Also the cameras are clearly on him whole time. They have bright lights and people holding them are facing directly at him. I really don't see how he mistakenly could have thought they were off.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;39181347]It happens at funerals all the time, particularly when you're about to speak your piece about the deceased. When my grandfather died my mother did roughly the same thing.[/QUOTE] I can understand an air of humor in your grandfather's funeral, because he probably lived a happy life and died peacefully, though if that's not the case sorry, but I doubt you would do the same exact things as you did with your grandfather as you would do with say, a 6 year old niece killed by a crazed gunman.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;39181442]I can understand an air of humor in your grandfather's funeral, because he probably lived a happy life and died peacefully, though if that's not the case sorry, [B]but I doubt you would do the same exact things as you did with your grandfather as you would do with say, a 6 year old niece killed by a crazed gunman.[/B][/QUOTE] Why not?

[QUOTE=cani;39181420]Also the cameras are clearly on him whole time. They have bright lights and people holding them are facing directly at him. I really don't see how he mistakenly could have thought they were off.[/QUOTE] Are you sure? In the second video it's an representative for either the school district or the Newtown Police telling the news that Robbie is about to speak and then it pans to him. [editline]11th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Canuhearme?;39181475]Why not?[/QUOTE] Probably because of the age difference. You're grandfather had a full life, as I assume because you haven't rebuked that. That little girl barely even started her life. If you don't see the tragedy of that then I don't know what to say to you.

[QUOTE=Glorbo;39181124][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s[/URL] Again, why would they need to fake a school shooting? Faking a school shooting in order to ban guns is like faking a car accident in order to ban cars.[/QUOTE] It was funny at first, but this cars-to-guns comparison is getting really fucking old. It doesn't work. Period. Cars are not guns. They do not server similar functions as guns. Where as cars are integral to most of our daily life, guns are not. You do not hop on your gun to ride to school. Don't get me wrong, I support gun ownership, but that comparison is about as good as knives to pencils. Both can be used to stab people, but when's the last time someone tried to ban a pencil? :v: Also, without going full tin-foil hat, there are a few reasons to fake a school shooting. The way the media is reporting these and piling down the message 'guns are bad'; it's obvious that people are riding on events like these to try to persuade you everyman that guns are [I]really[/I] bad and that we don't need them. Oh, and that assault weapons are really dangerous and we need to ban them right away.* [SUB][SUB]*Assault weapons being anything that can carry over 10 rounds, or has a detachable magazine, or is listed by one of over a thousand names. Not only does the woman who wrote the bill have a technical assault weapon under her words, they're (1994 AWB) used in less than 1-2% of all shootings. Mass or not. The new bill would make every conventional handgun and rifle illegal. Shotguns would be potentially illegal. The only straight-up no-questions legal guns would be very bare-bones revolvers and guns with internal magazines of less than 10 (old bolt-action rifles).[/SUB][/SUB] Any time there's a tragedy, unfortunately, people see opportunity to push a message. If a message can't be pushed, make up bad tragedies. Personally, I think the Sandy Hook shooting is just a mix of terrible news reporting, bad information, and too many people trying to pounce on it to say "oh my god guns are bad" before even telling us the full story.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;39181503]Are you sure? In the second video it's an representative for either the school district or the Newtown Police telling the news that Robbie is about to speak and then it pans to him. [editline]11th January 2013[/editline] Probably because of the age difference. You're grandfather had a full life, as I assume because you haven't rebuked that. That little girl barely even started her life. If you don't see the tragedy of that then I don't know what to say to you.[/QUOTE] So you're basically saying "He was old he wasn't as much as a person as [I]she[/I] was."

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;39181503] Probably because of the age difference. You're grandfather had a full life, as I assume because you haven't rebuked that. That little girl barely even started her life. If you don't see the tragedy of that then I don't know what to say to you.[/QUOTE] Cancer killed my mother. My father sobbed & screamed that night. At the funeral days later, he smiled the entire time, but I knew he was broken inside.

[QUOTE=Garik;39181579]So you're basically saying "He was old he wasn't as much as a person as [I]she[/I] was."[/QUOTE] No you fucking idiot, he lived a long productive life and there's nothing to feel sorry or sad over that for. That child did not, that's why it's sadder in my opinion. [QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;39181582]Cancer killed my mother. My father sobbed & screamed that night. At the funeral days later, he smiled the entire time, but I knew he was broken inside.[/QUOTE] Same happened to me, but instead of my dad doing that he was livid with sadness. I was only 6 and couldn't understand it, so I went through the whole funeral without a tear. I never really coped with it till like 10 years later. Again, my argument is that death of young life in violence is sadder then life fulfilled and death in peace.

You can't let yourself be overcome with grief, otherwise you may end up doing something drastic and itself very tragic.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;39181670]You can't let yourself be overcome with grief, otherwise you may end up doing something drastic and itself very tragic.[/QUOTE] Then that's not your problem, it's a mental health issue and it should be addressed. I can understand sadness and grief, but if you're seriously hinting at people committing suicide or doing other things to deal with it, then yeah it's no longer a coping mechanism, it's a mental health issue.

Why is facepunch so liberal about everything but gun control?

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;39181636] [b]Again, my argument is that death of young life in violence is sadder then life fulfilled and death in peace.[/b][/QUOTE] In your [I]opinion[/I] it is, but to someone else, it really depends on the person and their state of mind. I am not going to argue that ether or is sadder though, because a loss is a loss regardless of age. [editline]11th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=prooboo;39181733]Why is facepunch so liberal about everything but gun control?[/QUOTE] Facepunch is known for their guns, gasmasks, and games policy.

[QUOTE=prooboo;39181733]Why is facepunch so liberal about everything but gun control?[/QUOTE] Because facepunch knows that banning guns will do jack shit to stop this stuff from occuring.

Personally, I think the mom is just as guilty as the kid in this shooting She was too perfect, if you catch my meaning. All these charity events that she does. Nice house, fairly wealthy. But then you look at the kid who also lived in that house. Ragged clothes, extremely skinny. Went to have a haircut and every time the baber asked a question she would jump in and answer for him. When the hair cut was done he sat there until his mom told him to get up and grabbed him and dragged him out basically. And this was in public. She was going to have him committed but two days before that she leaves him alone and goes on a vacation by herself. I feel that she treated him as a burden she wanted to get rid of so she could be free to do what she wanted The kid had some issues but I think she drove him over the breaking point, myself. No telling what happened behind those closed doors

I'm just going to leave this here... [video=youtube;G5OMOJoUye4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5OMOJoUye4[/video] Doesn't look much like what I'd expect from a grieving relative. You tell me what it means, though.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;39182584]I'm just going to leave this here... [video=youtube;G5OMOJoUye4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5OMOJoUye4[/video] Doesn't look much like what I'd expect from a grieving relative. You tell me what it means, though.[/QUOTE] How's about you read the rest of this page.

I highly doubt a government that nearly collapses every few months (fiscal cliffs) and is unable to manage even its most basic financial functions (national debt) would be capable of pulling off such an elaborate conspiracy.

[QUOTE=prooboo;39181733]Why is facepunch so liberal about everything but gun control?[/QUOTE] Likely because facepunch is not just one guy on a computer somewhere, and therefore doesn't have one set opinion on every issue under the sun?

[img]http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/james-holmes1.jpg[/img] More fuel to the conspiracy fire! What do you guys think about this? If the pics were better quality, I'd be convinced but now it's not too easy to tell if they are the same person or if they just look alike.

[QUOTE=Cone;39178875] Why would you fake yet another school shooting when there's been so many in the past? Just for one more bit of evidence to be used in the anti-gun debate? Seems pretty elaborate when you could just like, pull up some reliable statistics, argue only what you know to be true, and present your opinions in a calm, objective manner that doesn't anger everyone who reads it. Which leads me to... [/QUOTE] People are more likely to react strongly to emotion rather than stats of past situations they're now mostly detached from.

[QUOTE=ForestRaptor;39182755][img]http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/james-holmes1.jpg[/img] More fuel to the conspiracy fire! What do you guys think about this? If the pics were better quality, I'd be convinced but now it's not too easy to tell if they are the same person or if they just look alike.[/QUOTE]You have to be joking. Seriously, that's the most idiotic thing I've seen yet. "She has brown hair! This person from Sandy Hook has brown hair! SAME PERSON!"

[QUOTE=ForestRaptor;39182755][img]http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/james-holmes1.jpg[/img] More fuel to the conspiracy fire! What do you guys think about this? If the pics were better quality, I'd be convinced but now it's not too easy to tell if they are the same person or if they just look alike.[/QUOTE] Fuck who ever made this image. Fuck them up the ass with a fucking splintery broom. "At home in Florida, using their real name, Sexton. They work for Homeland Security as "crisis actors" to promote obama's attack on the 2nd Amendment" They're not even saying "Look at this, isn't this odd?" They're fucking telling you in a matter of fact way "this shooting is a conspiracy from the Obama administration, we know this for a fact so well we don't even have to provide evidence, just believe us. Here are some FACTS that any person with half a brain would immediately recognize as bullshit but we know your stupid gun nut ass will fall for it because you're a fucking retard." FUCK OFF. These are the same people who come up with emails saying "Obama is cancelling the day of prayer!" and spread them around. These people are the worst fucking scum that their stupid fucking asses can manage to be. I hope they die of dysentery.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJLaWeyr1jwv[/url] This just popped in my head while reading the article :)

[QUOTE=Av7A;39181093]Then there is the two arrests, and only one man is charged. The second man was the man seen running through the forest with police on his tail. Why was he running? [/QUOTE] uh i dunno maybe cause [B]SOMEONE WAS MURDERING 26 PEOPLE NEARBY!?[/B] And what news is there in "Someone was running away from a murderer! Let's talk about someone running away from a murderer instead of, you know, [I]the murders.[/I]" [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;39183007]You have to be joking. Seriously, that's the most idiotic thing I've seen yet. "She has brown hair! This person from Sandy Hook has brown hair! SAME PERSON!"[/QUOTE] Don't be dense. The 3 women also all have noses, chins, and eyebrows. Clearly they're all the same person.

It's boggling my mind how some of you people actually believe the Sandy Hook shooting was staged. Ten bucks if this guy wasn't a professor and some other position, this whole thread would be nothing but mocking.

So let us look critically at this for one second. Why would the government stage a shooting where 26 people are killed (and before you tell me the shooting never happened, then how do you account for the various survivors who witnessed the event? Do you think the government can make a bunch of children lie for the rest of their lives?) to achieve stricter gun control? First off, our government runs about as smoothly as a one-legged dog. Any gun control bill could easily die in committee or in the house (and a few have already). If the government (and of course when I refer to "our government" I'm referring to the anti-gun faction that actually wants this to happen) really wanted to enact a stricter gun control bill, then they would first weaken the lobbying power of special interest groups. That is a highly unlikely course of action because our congressmen love the campaigning money special interest groups provide. A more likely alternative would be to hold an extremely important bill "hostage". What do I mean by that? Well, when an extremely important bill needs to be passed (the fiscal cliff bill for example) they can attach riders to it (a rider does not even have to have anything to do with the bill) that could limit gun rights in some way, and when the pro-gun Congressmen balk at it, they can essentially blame them for the gridlock and hope that they just give up. But again, both sides know how to use riders to their advantage, which can lead to bills that have to be redrawn because they contain riders that nobody likes. So in conclusion, staging a shooting to accomplish a legislative goal is foolhardy because it is more than likely that whatever legislation comes out of it will not make it through Congress.

[QUOTE=Squidman;39183557]So let us look critically at this for one second. Why would the government stage a shooting where 26 people are killed (and before you tell me the shooting never happened, then how do you account for the various survivors who witnessed the event? Do you think the government can make a bunch of children lie for the rest of their lives?) to achieve stricter gun control? First off, our government runs about as smoothly as a one-legged dog. Any gun control bill could easily die in committee or in the house (and a few have already). If the government (and of course when I refer to "our government" I'm referring to the anti-gun faction that actually wants this to happen) really wanted to enact a stricter gun control bill, then they would first weaken the lobbying power of special interest groups. That is a highly unlikely course of action because our congressmen love the campaigning money special interest groups provide. A more likely alternative would be to hold an extremely important bill "hostage". What do I mean by that? Well, when an extremely important bill needs to be passed (the fiscal cliff bill for example) they can attach riders to it (a rider does not even have to have anything to do with the bill) that could limit gun rights in some way, and when the pro-gun Congressmen balk at it, they can essentially blame them for the gridlock and hope that they just give up. But again, both sides know how to use riders to their advantage, which can lead to bills that have to be redrawn because they contain riders that nobody likes. So in conclusion, staging a shooting to accomplish a legislative goal is foolhardy because it is more than likely that whatever legislation comes out of it will not make it through Congress.[/QUOTE] Neat, actual critical thinking.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39178760]Cool, let's not use critical thinking for anything and accept everything we hear as absolute truth 100% of the time.[/QUOTE] Somebody needed to say it.