Am I The Only One Who Feels Like Many Of The Recent Shootings In America Feel A Little...Off?

a reply to: solongandgoodnight

It seems to me that when ever TPTB need a diversion they activate one of these guys. Someone sitting in the dark in their parents basement gets a phone call they hear "THE" word and off they go to a school. Crazy.

Putin tells Obama to sit and then he blows up some so call "friends of ours.

Then someone tells someone to blow up a hospital ( I wonder who they where really after)

We the people start to wake up and they make "THE" call and BAM everyone is looking the other way.

originally posted by: grahag
a reply to: solongandgoodnight

So what would make these mass shootings seem less fishy? What would have to occur during these shootings for them to make sense?

In short...they would have to tell the truth and the whole truth to the American people. Every time that there is a "conspiracy", it is because something is being hidden from us. The whole conspiracy around 9/11 could be because there is one little lie that they told to hide something from us. Maybe it wasn't as big a conspiracy as some think, but every time we are not told the entire truth...it gets into our subconscious and we KNOW something is not right. That is the birth of most every conspiracy.

Add to that, that about 1/2 of the people view our government as the enemy and you have your answer.

originally posted by: gflyg
Stricter gun laws won't solve anything. If someone wants to shoot something up, the chances of someone they know being able to get a gun are pretty good. They can steal it from them. If someone is willing to kill many people they will do anything to accomplish that.

A) There'll still be an important cooling-off period between the thought and potential action where an individual has to consciously steal/obtain a gun rather than having one to hand.

B) Presumably, the theft of a gun would also be noticed and reported - giving authorities the heads up that a potential violent incident is likely.

C) WIDE AVAILABILITY OF GUNS IS [B]PRECISELY[/B] THE (main) PROBLEM(s). How many children get injured because their family's guns aren't stored safely?

originally posted by: gflygAnd banning guns altogether will open doors for all the criminals that don't do things out of fear of being shot for it. Not to mention in order to protect them after taking all there guns you gotta take away there freedom. As messed up as massacres are we lose more using that way to stop it

Which criminals are scared of being shot? And which are more scared of 'someone with a gun' rather than the police... who would presumably stay armed (in the US) whether or not "normal" people weren't.

Guns are not equivalent to "freedom" (which in any case is a nebulous and changeable concept). Having the 2nd Amend. 'freedom/right' to own guns is predicated on very old logic, the phrase "well-regulated" and specific - no longer valid - hypothetical scenarios.

originally posted by: daveinats
Most of the shooters were on some type of anti-depressant medicine. There are several lists floating out there. One has 62 names on it. The pictures are similar...all wide eyed and blank stare.

Most mugshots, yearbook photos and - particularly - deliberately-chosen "criminal" headshot pictures have a similar look: taken under similar circumstances, in similar conditions with similar instructions from the photographer, etc.

It cannot be a surprise that there are basic similarities in look... whether or not drugs are a factor. (But wouldn't the mentally be likely to have been prescribed medication anyway..? Sometimes the simple answer can be the right one.)

originally posted by: yorkshirelad..freely available weapons that have one purpose.....to kill.

originally posted by:truthseeker84When you say freely available weapons, where does that end?

Sports crossbows can be retrofitted to kill, with lethal efficiency. Do you want to ban sports utilities next...?

Go online and see how fast you can convert a regular sport arrow into a lethal one, spending less than $0.50 on each arrow.

Home cooked NAPALM, can be strategically deployed in a heavily populated area.

"Retrofitted", "convert(ed)" and "cooked" take a lot of time, energy, focus and effort. Very much above-and-beyond the snap(ped)- of taking a gun to shoot people.

Do people do these things? Presumably. Is it common? NO. Do people get hold of guns on a fairly regular basis and shoot people? YES. So there is something about the ease, availability and simplicity of guns.

And anyone seriously trying argue that guns aren't SPECIFICALLY designed to shoot (and kill) is clearly unfamiliar with the history of military warfare. Can other things kill? Of course. Are they designed to is the key question. Cars are meant to transport.

originally posted by:truthseeker84If I drive a V8 truck, in a crazed manner with deadly intentions to kill, hitting heavy populated areas such as fairs or mass gathering areas, how many do you think I can run over and kill before someone stops me?

You are using a non-lethally-designed thing in a lethal fashion. And the real answer to your hypothetical is vague - it's easier to see, dodge and survive a hit-n-run than a shooting. And, again, this is notably NOT the method of choice of the minority who go on sprees. If it ever becomes so, there'll be comparative questions to debate.

originally posted by:truthseeker84You restrict access to fire arms, people will seek other means. It's that simple.

A) It ISN'T that simple - they tend not to in other countries with stricter gun regulation.

B) The 'cool off' and ability for third parties to notice increases dramatically with the examples you provide - as does survival rate.

C) SOME will. Yes. There will always be people who manage to get around safeguards - that doesn't negate the need for safeguards. You might as well argue against the necessity of requiring seatbelts because not everyone wears one, or of rules governing conduct at sporting events: the rules safeguard the masses; outliers and unpredictble individuals by definition cannot be legislated for.

originally posted by:truthseeker84And before you say some stupid # about how a knife wielder can be easily subdued given enough people leap forward.. Yeah, right, I'm sure you get so many bad ass Army, Marine vet wanna be's just dying to jump in front of a knife for you...

www.cnn.com...

Knives are significantly easier to dodge, survive and render inoperable. They are also FAR more ubiquitous than guns EVERYWHERE..... and yet are very rarely the weapon-of-choice in these disturbing incidents. And there are obvious-to-(almost)-all reasons for that.

originally posted by:truthseeker84You want the blood shed to stop, take some #ing responsibility and find out why the guy went ape #. Was it family influence? Was it drug related? Was it social issues? Or perhaps a combination all of the above. Who knows, but we certainly don't address it that way.

EVERY SINGLE TIME, some mass shooting happens, the first thing that rings in people's heads is "GUN!!! GUNS GUN GUN GUN GUN GUN GUN GUN.". It's never "WHY IN THE HELL DID THIS GUY DO ALL THIS CRAZY STUFF?"

Your last rant is nonsense - that question comes up as often or more. But along with the "why" must come the "how" - How did someone [with a history of X] obtain weapons to kill and injure? How did they kill/injure so many? How, when there are millions of similarly-afflicted/thinking people functioning reasonably-normally did THIS one go so tragically in this direction? Also WHY does it happen disproportionately more often in America? And the answers to most of those questions involve (easy access) to guns and lack-of-access to mental healthcare.

For sure, gun control is not the only answer. But on some level, in some manner, it MUST be a PART of the debate - but it is taken out of any rationaldebate every time by people who refuse to acknowledge it plays ANY part in the dialog.

The other elements you highlight are important - VERY important for the most part - and arguably even more important than the gun issues. But the gun questions still need addressing without hyperbole and hysteria.

IF Person B with the same family, drug and societal problems DID NOT go on a rampage, what part did guns play in Person A's attacks? If Person A had not had guns, would things have been similar, different or 'other'? GUNS ARE PART OF IT.

a reply to: solongandgoodnight



You are part of the collective mind merely seeing a reflection of your own thoughts.

originally posted by: alreadylosing
It's the timing to me. These mass shooting always come when the government has done something embarrassing . The bombing of the doctors without Borders has been totally overshadowed by the Oregon shooter.

This is an excellent point. Regardless of how or why this shooting took place, fishy or not, the real weapon here is the power of meme.
Id even go so far to say that there are people very interested in these conversations in particular, and that this is a part of the product being manufactured. We are the product.
Why and how, I don't know.
It's clear to me though that it's time to get meta concerning our news cycle and the mechanisms behind the future of our collective culture.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
It seems just as manufactured as ISIS. Funny how when the government needs a problem so they can intact their solution, one always seems to rise to occasion doesn't it? Curious and curiouser I say!

Only to a paranoid US citizen who still does not get it and will invent conspiracy after conspiracy instead of facing up to the consequences of freely available weapons that have one purpose.....to kill.

Nutters kill and their excuse will be utterly illogical (hint - because they are nutters DUH!)

To people like this, you shouldn't be on a conspiracy website posting against conspiracies then.

a reply to: FreeQuebec86

Funny how you speak for Canadians here, yet your name is "FreeQuebec."

But really, please don't speak for Canadians at all. Our country is different, the situation is different. Guns are being made much more of a deal of in the States because their problems are bigger (their establishment is more powerful and more aggressive.) A lot of people are having a hard time not seeing a violent revolution at some point in the States. I am not a man of violence but, one way or another, I think that's what it will come down to, sadly. The Powers That Be there are just so powerful, cowardly and they have so much to hide from so many angry citizens that they would be willing to do anything in order to defend their power (by which they also judge their own self-worth.)

These shootings are highly suspicious. I was never even that curious about conspiracy theories about such shootings in the past, but at this point I can't not wonder. It is rather convenient.

(Although, I found the photograph of the Columbine shooters highly questionable. I personally believed that their bodies had been moved because the police probably gunned them after they'd either killed themselves or dropped their guns, because the police were scared. I just thought it was a matter of image, and nothing more. But then you look at how incredibly long the police waited, while the gunshots sounded at the kids inside the very building they waited next to, as well as other things, and it arouses suspicion.)

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
It seems just as manufactured as ISIS. Funny how when the government needs a problem so they can intact their solution, one always seems to rise to occasion doesn't it? Curious and curiouser I say!

Only to a paranoid US citizen who still does not get it and will invent conspiracy after conspiracy instead of facing up to the consequences of freely available weapons that have one purpose.....to kill.

Nutters kill and their excuse will be utterly illogical (hint - because they are nutters DUH!)

Facts bear out over and over again that where there is less gun control there is less crime. More guns = less crime. Fact. More gun control = more crime. Fact. Look at Chicago.

Get your head out of the clouds, man. Come back to reality.

To the OP: I agree. Very off. All of the shootings were in gun-free zones, with exception of the Virginia shooting, which was in a very remote area early in the morning before there were many people there. Little chance of being stopped.