Photo: Sandy Hook shooter as a toddler.

reply to post by therealguyfawkes


Its nothing like iraq. If you told them what to expect and that was "you won't be shot back and all your targets will be close defenseless and huddled together ten feet away and you only need 60 percent accuracy." I guarantee a lot of that stress would fade because a.) no danger and b.) even if there were he was suicidal.

They dont understand this guy wasnt mentally in the same place as them. He was detached and likely had no fear as he was going to off himself and his targets were defenseless and in close quarters. Those marines are full of it if they aren't considering these factors.

He had planned and researched this forever. He even researched how to shoot himself.

This was cold and calculated and executed by an emotionless guy. All those things they try to use to explain it away dont apply. Adam Lanzas dysfunction and the closeness and defenseless status of the kids would make it more like target shooting to the average person. So I still suggest you try it.


They said the kids were packed like sardines and he shot 15 kids three times each with 80 rounds. That puts his accuracy closer to 50 or 60 percent thats actually horrible for how close. Likely he was just spraying the bullets.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Fair enough. Like I originally said, we can agree to disagree. I knew I wouldn't convince you, and I know you won't convince me. And that's totally cool... how boring would life be if we all had homogenous perspectives?

If you still have enough faith in this corrupt government (that lies about everything else) to blindly take its word that Lanza was the killer, so be it. You have the free will to make that choice.

As for me, I demand hard proof before believing the BS lies of this BS establishment. And there hasn't been a single shred of evidence that in any way conclusively proves Lanza was the shooter at Sandy Hook.

reply to post by therealguyfawkes


Im not blindly taking its word, but its themost likely scenario. Even with inconsistencies there is no evidence suggesting the gov or anyone else. I keep my mind open though.
The information im providing should convince you easily until there is evidence to the contrary. I dont think you are being open minded. I dont think anything would convince you. You would use impossible tibreproduce variables that are minor to the case and make the case huh Inge on those.
like if I made a video of a skinny ten your old, loaded him down with weapons and had him reproduce the event on a range, you still poo lent believe.
You haven't to know that blindly rejecting the official story just because you dont trust the government is the exact same and just as bad as blindly accepting it.

I remain agnostic on the subject.

reply to post by GalaxyEyes


Whoops.

Trick no good.

Hey at least try to be convincing.