Posted on 01/10/2013 11:55:45 AM PST by Uncle Chip
When 20 children and 6 adults were murdered in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre we, like most other people, were shocked and horrified at what appeared to be an act of senseless brutality. When a person experiences the tragic and untimely loss of a loved one, particularly in unusual or apparently inexplicable circumstances, the initial intense feelings of grief usually give way to a desire to understand HOW and WHY the tragedy occurred, in an effort to make sense of it and achieve some kind of 'closure'. This is a very normal and natural human reaction. We have an innate need to understand the world around us and how things 'work'. In our modern, technological world, most of what we understand about our world and how it works is provided to us by some authority or other. And most of us accept the conclusion of those authorities as being true. In some cases, those explanations are true.
In relation to the Sandy Hook massacre; while the HOW of the attack has been explained, as yet, there seem to be few authoritative answers as to WHY the massacre occurred. That is to say, WHY a lone gunman decided to walk into a school and murder 20 children and 6 adults. At this point, three weeks after the event, it seems that the world will ultimately have to accept the narrative that a lone, disturbed individual murdered those children because he was, well, disturbed. Specifically, it is claimed that Lanza had 'Asperger's Syndrome', yet according to experts, people with this condition do not run a higher risk of killing others or themselves and indeed that they 'rarely harm others'. The 'disturbed individual' answer is, therefore, a rather unsatisfactory one, but it's an answer nonetheless.
But here's a question. What if the explanation provided by authorities about how something happened doesn't make sense in any truly objective way? More to the point, what if you have reasonable cause to suspect that the official version of events may not be accurate? Logically, you'd think that the same desire to make sense of the tragedy and find closure would remain unsatisfied in such a case. But you'd be wrong to think so, because it seems that most people, particularly those affected most directly by a tragedy, will gratefully accept the first plausible official explanation that is offered to them, even if, as in the case of the Sandy Hook massacre, it doesn't really explain WHY the tragedy occurred. The reason that most people react in this way is probably due to the same desire to find closure and 'put it behind them'.
With that in mind, we'd like to state that our previous analyses of the Sandy Hook massacre were in no way motivated by any desire to 'stir up some shit just for the sake of it' (as several individuals suggested). Our motivation was, rather, to satisfy our desire to find a more satisfactory explanation of HOW and WHY the massacre occurred, a desire that really resulted from our inability to simply ignore the outstanding inconsistencies in the official story.
But first however, we'd like to draw your attention to some of the more outrageous and false claims being made about the Sandy Hook massacre.
Was the AR used in the shooting or was it left in the car?
It was used...
Now Sandy Hook is begging the police (good guys with guns) to please stick around a bit longer...
...should have thought of that sooner jackasses!
you got baby blood on your hands.
The question that matters to me is was my AR used in the shooting, and the answer is no, it was not.
OK. If there was no incident at the school on the previous day, then why did he choose this target? He had to load weapons into the car and drive to the school. That’s not heat of the moment behavior. That’s a conscious, deliberate act. And the police arrive and he shoots himself? Why? He suddenly became remorseful?
How did the kid get his mother’s guns? (crickets from the press)
Was he under psych care for a potentially violent mental condition ( not “autism”)? (crickets from press)
Was he under influence of any medication prescribed or other? (crickets from press aside from a few inflammatory anti-psych med articles inspired by rumors from nosy unnamned neighor and a fake “uncle”)
the lack of press coverage of the facts of the case, correcting earlier misreporting, has been astounding
OK. WHICH SHOOTER was carrying the AR-15 ?
Newtown parents want police to stay at schools
Email Story Print By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, AP
NEWTOWN, Conn. — Some parents in Newtown are calling for police to stay at town schools indefinitely, saying the sight of uniformed officers is a comfort to their children in a town reeling from last month’s massacre inside an elementary school.
Excerpt, full story at this link: Newtown parents want police to stay at schools:
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20130110/US.School.Shooting.Security/
10,000 armed officers are in various schools around the nation.
Why do you suppose this monster chose to shoot up a school? Could it be because he knew no one would be shooting back?
If you listen to the bimbette reporter from Channel 9 News doing her report, she is attributing these rumors to the interview with the closet nurse:
How would the closet nurse know anything — she was in the closet for 4 hours while the media misinformation was being propagated.
If someone want to get to the bottom of it they should ask her if she really talked to anybody all day.
Have the police made their findings public yet?
I saw youtube videos stating only the pistols were used. That was around the time that it was being said the mom worked at the school.
Adam Lanza was the only shooter and he used a AR-15.
Another Freeper on one of the threads (can’t remember which one) said they knows one of the first responders that claims there were .223 all over the place around the crime scene. Not sure why all of the mis-reporting of this in the hours and days after. The last I heard was that the shotgun was found in the car...I am suspicious to why the story seems to change so much.
>Could it be because he knew no one would be shooting back?<
.
You think that they will be shooting back from assisted living homes, hospitals and unarmed private homes?
This whole discussion about disarming the American law-abiding citizen is something very sinister.
The people should be deeply disappointed in the entire GOP in that none of them is creating holy hell about it. It just shows what the GOP is made of.
Another Freeper on one of the threads (can’t remember which one) said they knows one of the first responders that claims there were .223 all over the place around the crime scene. Not sure why all of the mis-reporting of this in the hours and days after. The last I heard was that the shotgun was found in the car...I am suspicious to why the story seems to change so much.
Maybe Mr's Quinn and Bradley didn't have time to interview Joe Biden before rushing to print.
the lack of press coverage of the facts of the case, correcting earlier misreporting, has been astounding
The list of unknowns is at least as long as the list of knowns. That's a bad sign, and the longer that disparity remains, the worse it looks. Where are the facts? Who's been hiding them? Why? On whose authority?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.