I've been clear about my opinion in the Sandy Hook thread and in this one.
That's it, you really think some group of great minds are thinking of the best way to disarm the American Populace is by "dramatizing" a few high school murders?

The dramatization of the absence of a 2nd shooter, becomes "the government cover up of the second shooter", and it's designed by radical right wingers to make irrational gun owners believe the "socialist" government of Obama is tryna take their guns.
So can you just give me the source of your conspiracy theory please? So I can find out who "they" are.

Guevarista wrote:
The best way to disarm is to remove the reason/need for armament.
That much is self evident to HJ's pet gerbil.

Guevarista wrote:
No you haven't been clear - you tried some insults & derailing on the Sandy Hook thread - maybe you also made some salient points, but your method just stopped me - and others btw - from reading. You also made some views known, notably, prior to reading the information - I don't think reading anything changed your views, because you'd made your mind up beforehand.

That's why I asked what your views are, to find out whether you actually had any, or were just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Guevarista wrote:
I don't recall referring to anybody as a group of great minds. I'd like you to stop the tactic of putting words in my mouth please.

It wasn't a few high school murders was it! The OP talks about a shooting in a temple, a shooting in a theatre, and a shooting in a junior school. Try and keep up with at least the basics.

And yes, I do - there's a frenzy now of many people who were not talking about it much before, now airing their views quite passionately with each of these atrocities, in favour of banning guns. Now, you're perfectly welcome to disagree, but since, if that was their aim it's been pretty successful at swaying a lot of public opinion, you'd be foolish to try and pour scorn on the idea.
Guevarista wrote:
I don't know what, 'Source of the conspiracy' you're referring to. I've had the courtesy to explain my thought processes to you when asked (even though it should have been self-evident) which is more than you've done.

There's much more than the 2nd shooter thing, as you know, but in order to make it harder for people to dance around and muck this thread up with various unsavoury tactics, I chose to just stick to the one aspect. Which, despite your evident disdain, you haven't managed to 'debunk' btw.

pinko commies from the brown shirts brigade are coming to take american patriots freedom sticks, how about they take the bullets first?
from my cold dead hands.

plz guev, theres something going on here, its getting exploited too. i dont know what comes first, chicken or the egg. but come on, why we got to fall out with each other. i dont think its constructive

Delusions are constructed, false consciousness is constructed, and what then, what then when we're all deluded and clinically paranoid?

Foul stenches right under the nostrils are ignored, with pretence of normality - what then, when we've all allowed the malignant rot to spread unhindered?

Then will we have the awakening?

Gilly wrote: By malignant rot are you talking about these inane theories of a second shooter?

Guevarista wrote:
Do you see what you're doing, Gue?

You keep trying your best to poke ridicule, but you've not said one single remark that effectively counters the evidence in the OP vid. If you do, I'll evaluate it, to see if it changes the complexion of things - till then, I've once again reached the point where I find your posts not really worth acknowledging.

you cant say there wasn't a second shooter with any kind of conviction because you werent there, and theres plenty of evidence mounting up to point to it being possible, from witness accounts to police pressure. if it would fly in a court room, i dont know. but you know they say walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its probably a duck. if some people are thinking there is a 2nd person involved and they have reasons to believe, its fair enough to let them explore that avenue. thats all im sayin, not saying you have to believe one way or another.

conspiracypsych.com/2012/12/18/mass-shoo...etence-and-politics/

batou wrote:
Tell me what's going on here batou?

thanks. i cleaned up a bit.

batou wrote: Good, thanks for doing that.

I find the levels of disrespect rather juvenile. I brought up Columbine as an example to make a comparison. I mentioned it a few times and still feel it is very much related to the original topic. I did not at any point try to steer the topic on to another topic. I also noticed that when wub mentioned Kurt Cobain not one word was said about wub steering the topic away from the op. I would love you to tell me how Kurt Cobain is more relevant than columbine to the three shootings mentioned.

I don't appreciate being called a clown either Andy. I think it is possible to disagree respectfully but some people appear to disagree with that approach. I have attempted to discuss this topic in a grown up manner but it seems dome people can't do that. I really don't have time to do this right now but I will

i-baster wrote: As I've already explained previously, I was giving an example of when and why police may be unwilling to re-open an investigation. I was thanked for this post as you can see here:

sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/General/90937-ma....html?start=20#92207

If Gilly feels that it's off-topic, I'm happy for it to be deleted, but I think it adds value to the thread as it shows that police were unwilling to open a considerably less contentious investigation.

That was not the point I was making. I mentioned Columbine and have been accused of trying to steer the topic away. You mention Kurt Cobain and not a word. I don't have issue with you mentioning it personally but it is a clear double standard.

i-baster wrote:
To be fair, you do have a point. And as someone who's just read the thread and not contributed, I can see how both the Columbine and the Cobain links fit in in. Well they do in regards to veering of the tracks somewhat. But both still do.

i-baster wrote: Gilly originally said this:
Gilly wrote: And then you instantly carried on talking about Columbine, so this is liable to irritate. Anyone can look at the discussion on page 1 and see that Gilly was scrupulously polite, so to call it an accusation is a little bit overblown in my opinion. If you feel that strongly about Columbine, why don't you start your own thread on the subject?