Why Are ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ Throwing Up A Smoke Screen Around Shooting Tragedies?

twitter navy yardAlmost immediately after any mass murder in the United States a group of “conspiracy theorists” (for lack of a better term) will claim that the event was a “false flag” atrocity perpetrated by our own government. We published an essay on the topic entitled “Questioning the Conspiracy: The Aurora Shootings” in the wake of the Aurora, CO, movie theater murders, and we’re wondering once more what is the purpose of the smoke screen the “conspiracy theorists” are throwing up around tragic events like the Washington Navy Yard shootings this week.

Wired’s Danger Room summarizes some of the noise already emanating from the depths of Alex Jones’s belly and elsewhere:

Washington Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis had been receiving mental health treatment, had anger management issues, and told Rhode Island police that he had been hearing voices and was being harassed through microwave mind control. Most people who heard that needed no further explanation for Monday’s tragic events. They understood the 12 deaths and eight injuries to be the sad result of severe mental illness, perhaps even paranoid schizophrenia.

But before (and even after) the details of Alexis’ difficult past emerged, many people on the fringe had instead opted for a range of conspiracy theories — just as they did in the Sandy Hook massacre, the Aurora, CO movie theatre shooting, and even 9/11. The conflicting reports as to whether the shooter was a civilian or a servicemember, the number of shooters involved, the incorrect identification of the suspect, and a whole host of other unanswered questions were all fodder for conspiracy theorists of varying intensity to take to Twitter, YouTubediscussion boards, blogs, and other online outlets to assert the sometimes absurd and the sometimes plausible.

For some, it was a “false flag,” a covert military operation…

[continues at Wired’s Danger Room]

, ,

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Easy…while most of us who are conspiracists regarding one theory or another, we are influenced by internet discussion of one kind or another. Many professional groups and agencies know this.

    Information warriors understand that they can move public opinion and shape at a crisis point. In this case, conservatives and gun lobbyists immediately start a disinformation campaign to muddy the waters and raise paranoia…largely to prevent a crackdown on crazy people owning guns or a crackdown on guns in any general sense. By keeping the focus off the tragedy (and the reality that sometime people kill, and do it effectively when they are heavily armed) and keeping the focus on the nebulous fear that all our toys will be taken away and we’ll be helpless to defend ourselves (as if you wouldn’t be helpless against drones, tanks and grenades flung at you by a huge force of militarized police in armor.)

    This is the battleground of the 21st century…the blogosphere, twitter, youtube, FB, and any other sites often used to communicate socially are new weapons for info warriors…both good hearted and bad. We already know that corporations use the internet for discreet spin control after PR flubs, we know govt agencies make an effort to counter rising public opinion using the same. Do not act surprised that a cloud of confusion appears whenever a mass shooting happens and it always, unfailingly, appears to shape opinion against any action that might reduce gun sales.

    • kowalityjesus

      Its another case of ‘can’t tell if disinfo agent or just a moron…’

      • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

        While I don’t agree with everything Vox has to say in his post (guys with little more than assault weapons have actually won against our drones, tanks, grenades, fighter aircraft, combat helicopters, etc in two recent wars) I must point out that he is a valued and highly regarded commentor here on disinfo.

        I doubt he is a disinfo agent. He’s way too thoughtful for that. Also, I think he’s a painter.

        He is certainly not a moron.

        If I have misread the tone of your post, all due apologies.

        • kowalityjesus

          Yeah, I am quite sure Vox is not. I was actually referring to the people that think ‘a shooting taking place on a military base caused by a man with known mental instability was actually a government plot to take away our weapons': those people…..those people are morons. But I appreciate your conscientiousness.

          • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

            It seems clear enough to you or I.

            But there is a long history of law enforcement involving “easily manipulated” people in sting operations. (ex. Most of the recent FBI terrorism arrests)

            Sometimes they lose control of those operations. (ex. ’93 WTC bombing and 2009 Underwear bomber.)

            In any case, they always get used for a political agenda.

            It is difficult for me to harshly judge someone who may just be slightly more cynical than I am. Especially when the government never, ever, seems to be able to tell the truth.

  • BuzzCoastin

    > and we’re wondering once more what is the purpose of the smoke screen the “conspiracy theorists” are throwing up around tragic events

    Quid est veritas?
    answer: all information is disinformation

  • Hadrian999

    same reason “progressives” use the tragedies to push their own agenda. everything is conflict, every thing is either a tool to be used or an obstruction to your will

    • Silent Waft

      Didn’t make sense, try again

      • echar

        It makes sense to me.

      • Hadrian999

        everything is a tool, if you don’t use it or remove it from the field someone else will

  • echar

    For some it pays the bills, for others it serves the ego.

  • Juan

    You know, people will use whatever to further their respective agendas; doesn’t matter what it is. So of you’re a right winger, these shootings clearly mean that the gov is doing it as pretext to take way your guns. If you’re a “liberal” these shootings are a clear indication that we need stricter gun laws.
    I see them as simply a part of the cultural landscape of the US. They are symptoms of a a much deeper malaise. When you have a SICK culture saturated with violence of all kinds and guns, what the fuck do you think is gonna happen? Mass shootings on a regular basis is what happens, hello!

    • NiteGoat666

      Mass shootings do not happen on a “regular basis”. I know that’s what the news and the majority of the Left would like you to believe. Now before anyone starts calling me a Republican or a Conservative, I am not. I am a Left-leaning Independent who voted a straight Democrat ticket for the 2012 election. I just call it as I see it and do not tow any party line.

      • Juan

        Didn’t we just have two in a row? There was that one at the shipyard and apparently another one in Chicago.
        I suppose we could quibble about what exactly constitutes a “regular basis.” But as I suggested, these mass shootings are defintely a part of the cultural landscape of the US.
        As for me, I have decided that the left/right paradigm in the US is nothing but a puppet show for rubes. I will not participate in that charade any longer. But you know, we’re all free to vote for our favorite criminal psychopath. ‘Murika!

        • echar

          According to what I have found, mass shootings are down from a peak in the early 90’s. However the aughts are not over yet.

          If the experts on this sort of thing are to be believed, then parading the actions of these sick people across the media may be feeding their social script. We will likely see more.

          I read a blurb, just 3 days ago, using predictions from statistics, saying that we would see another shooting as soon as early Feb. 2014. They were clearly too conservative in their judgement.

          • alizardx

            Given the increase in social instability driven by the refusal of the .001% to pay their share of the costs (taxes, higher wages, more local hiring), I expect more violence.

          • echar

            Environmental concerns have the potential of impacting the mass social stressors, to boot.

        • kowalityjesus

          In the NPR report they made fucking sure we knew that the Chicago shooting was perpetrated with “an assault-style rifle with an extended clip” and then explicitly stating that the shooting would not have taken place with stricter gun laws. Jeannine Garafalo sez: “Drug laws don’t work because people will still be able to access drugs. Gun laws will work because people will not be able to access guns.”

          • echar

            Because prohibiting works so well.

          • Juan

            Seems it worked pretty well in Oz.

          • echar

            Australia isn’t sanwiched between Canada and south America, nor do they have those countries well established criminal organisations. Who by the way are making billions off of the current drug prohibition.

            I just came back from Alaska, and I’ve never met so many gun dealers. These were “average” people too. At the bars I heard talk about the current limit on ammo, more than once from different people.

            I doubt a simple buy back is going to fly. Any leader going for a prohibition on firearms may as well claim they are the antichrist, or the second coming of Christ. Besides, this is a problem of mental health and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, from my perspective.

          • echar

          • Juan

            Good one:)

          • DrDavidKelly

            Worked really well in Australia. After mad man Martin Bryant went postal at Port Arthur our then PM instigated a buy back of guns as well as enacting tougher gun laws. We have not had a single mass shooting since. In the previous 15 years to the Port Arthur massacre we had 9 mass shootings.

          • Juan

            Very interesting. Thanks for sharing that:)

          • DrDavidKelly

            You’re welcome. John Stewart did a bit on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE

          • NiteGoat666

            Different country. Different circumstances.

        • NiteGoat666

          Don’t you find it odd that these shootings took place so close in time? Not to mention at a time when gun control had pretty much dropped off the radar?

          • Juan

            Yeah, it’s almost as if they’ve become so commonplace that just one by itself was not impactful enough . . . “so we’ll hit ‘em with two to really prod the herd along.”

          • NiteGoat666

            Very funny, Juan. Mass shootings are far from “commonplace”. Do some research. Gun violence is the lowest it has ever been. You can go to the FBI website and look at the statistics yourself. When you find yourself confronted by an intruder in the middle of the night, would you rather have a gun to defend yourself or would you rather wait to see if the police show up in time? Or what about those who are disabled who can’t physically defend themselves? Or women who have no chance of physically overpowering an attacker? What do you suggest to those people when their right to own a gun is taken away?

          • Juan

            I suspect you may be reading more into my posts than what is actually there. While you have correctly picked up on my distaste for violence, especially gun violence, I have never suggested that people’s right to own a gun be taken away. Where have I said such a thing?
            Hell, why not make owning and carrying a concealed weapon mandatory for every person over the age of, oh I dunno 12. That should fix everything. Fnord.

          • NiteGoat666

            First, let me say that you did an excellent job of not answering any of my questions posed to you in my last reply. Secondly, the fact that you buy into this whole mass shootings being “part of the cultural landscape of the US” proves that a) You believe what the anti-gun element is propagating. and b) You are ignorant to the facts. Because you know, while I went out for my morning walk and coffee, I decided to commit a mass shooting while I was at it. Because as you well know, mass shootings are as you said “part of the cultural landscape of the US.”. And after I was done, I had a piece of apple pie just to round out the Americana of the entire experience. So if you keep regurgitating the anti-gun talking points one would have to come to the conclusion that you yourself are anti-gun. And if you are anti-gun and believe that guns are the problem, then naturally you would be for the elimination of the problem which you believe are guns. So even though you didn’t come out and explicitly say that you are for people’s right to own a gun be taken away, you tiptoed around the subject as you did with avoiding answering my previous questions. To address your comment “Hell, why not make owning and carrying a concealed weapon mandatory for
            every person over the age of, oh I dunno 12. That should fix everything.”, not only would that be unconstitutional, but dangerous to force anyone to own and conceal carry a gun. As the son of a retired Detroit Police officer, I was taught to handle and clean a handgun at the age of 5 or 6. I was shooting rifles by the age of 7. I have absolutely no problem with a well trained 13 year old being armed, so long as they are under the control of a trained adult. By the way, what is your personal experience with firearms? Have you yourself ever handled one? Or shot one? Or taken a firearms safety class? What exactly is your frame of reference when it comes to any discussion pertaining to guns?

          • Juan

            Ok, I’ll come clean. I do not like guns or the culture associated with them for all kinds of reasons that I will to bother to go into here. It should be pretty obvious why anyway.
            That said, as far as policy, laws and such, I am torn. If I thought that making tougher laws and restricting access to ridiculous military, assault weapons would stop this madness then I would be all for it. It seemed to work in Australia, but this is not Australia, different set pf bogans. However, I have so much mistrust, fear and loathing of this Empire that I do not trust them to do anything that will actually benefit most people. Also, just like drug prohibition does not cut down on drug use, I suspect that anti-gun prohibition will not have the effect of stopping mass shootings.
            So I dunno, man. I suspect that until there is some kind of radical cultural change in this country away from violence, fear and paranoia, these things will continue to happen.
            As far as mass shootings being a part of the cultural landscape in the US, you have your reality and I have mine. That’s fine with me.

          • NiteGoat666

            Nobody has “access to ridiculous military, assault weapons”. The only way anyone can own a military rifle such as an M-16 or fully-automatic AK-47, one must first pass a litany of applications and paperwork to obtain permission to purchase the license to purchase such weapons, as well as pay between 5 and 10 thousand dollars for said permit.

            I highly doubt those people are the ones committing any crimes. If you look at the FBI statistics as I have already suggested, you will plainly see that the majority of homicides in the US were committed with hands, feet and other blunt objects. Rifles are at the bottom of the list.

            So then why have rifles been made out to be the bad guy in the press? Why would the government want people stripped of rifles? Especially rifles with higher capacity magazines? What is their motive? If rifles are not the main mechanism of homicide, actually the least used weapon of choice, then why does the press and government always make sure to demonize so called “assault rifles” and “high-capacity” magazines?

            Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term,
            developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of ‘assault rifles’ so as to allow an attack on as many additional firearms as possible on the basis of undefined ‘evil’ appearance.

            The federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) contained in the 1994 Crime Bill, defined an assault weapon based on stylistic or cosmetic features such as the presence of a bayonet lug, pistol grip, folding rifle stocks, threaded barrels for attaching silencers, and the ability to accept ammunition magazines holding large numbers of bullets. It was in fact, based on a picture book review. These guns were chosen because they look scary. They had no enhanced lethality.

            The rifle most commonly, and inaccurately, identified as an
            assault weapon is the AR-15. This is a semi-automatic rifle that fires one round each time the trigger is pulled and is capable of 45-60 rounds per minute. They do not fire continuously once the trigger is pulled. The designation AR-15 comes from the name of the company that produced it, ArmaLite, and 15 is simply the model number. It is very popular because it is light weight, has high accuracy and low recoil. This gun is no more lethal than the common rifle owned by every rancher in Texas.

          • echar

            No, I do not. The type of person that does this kind of thing is goaded on by the media coverage of another mentally unstable gunman. In a sence, they are copycat crimes. They feel their actions are righteous, and they must do it to correct a wrong. Be they a hero, or an anti hero.

            Honestly, I find it odd that people have made it their livelihood to encourage people to be paranoid. I also find it odd that there are so many people that buy into the messages of these people.

  • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness

    I see it as a similar dynamic to how very religious people see Jesus on a potato chip. Our brains are wired to fill in the blanks. I’ve heard from authoritative sources that one cannot see the silhouette of a sliver moon, but I swear their wrong, because I can.

    Some people need an omnipresent boogy-man and an omnipresent hero. On either side of the gun debate one places gun owners or the government in those two boxes. Of course, the lines people draw are as interpretive as discolorations on a snack food, but they swear they’re right, because it’s obvious to themselves.

  • Steve Stark

    You appear to have put forward a conspiracy theory holding that the conspiracy theories are being used by (shadowy forces) as a “smokescreen” for something. Why do you conspiracy theorists always have to do this?

    • gustave courbet

      While I find the knee-jerk reaction to events like these being classified as ‘false flag’ psyops by the libertarian nativist crowd to be dispiriting, I would add that information warfare and disinformation campaigns and techniques are in use, and being honed by the powers that be.

    • Andrew

      Because truth is a weapon.

  • Haystack

    Some people use political narratives as a way to avoid having to actually think and evaluate individual events/controversies on their own terms. The fact that the US go’vt is often greedy and conspiratorial in no way implies that there aren’t also bad people who oppose the go’vt, or that the go’vt narrative is always wrong…but if you’re intellectually lazy or dogmatic enough, you can always twist any given news event around to conform to your ideological predispositions.

    The Internet makes it easy, by functioning as an echo-chamber. “Everyone” knows that whatever happened was really a false flag (really, it’s just everyone on InfoWars, but if that’s where you spend all your time…), and if you say otherwise then you’re clearly either a sheep or a psy ops agent. You feel like you’re a critical thinker whose seeing through the lies and distortions, but really you’re letting a mind virus do all your thinking for you.

    • gustave courbet

      well said

  • Charlie Primero

    When the magazine run by DOJ computer crimes unit operatives and the “reporters” instrumental in bringing Bradley Manning and other whistleblowers to justice tells you to ignore un-Official narratives concerning 9/11 and other media terror events, you should have full confidence in their objectivity and lack of agenda.

    Truth and Justice are always most important to the billionaire owner of Wired and Condé Nast publications. Listen. Trust. Be Happy.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/Stealingsugar stealingsugar

    Videos of fake blood being poured out of bags are the kinds of things those theorists point to, and that is JUST WRONG!

    • DrDavidKelly

      And the near free fall speed the buildings fell at? Is that just wrong too or did the laws of physics take a day off on 9/11.

      • http://twitter.com/#!/Stealingsugar stealingsugar

        I was being sarcastic, yes, I know they were turned to dust, and I know what did it, too, because they did the same thing to my cabin!

        • DrDavidKelly

          Thermite or in the case of 9/11 nanothermite. There’s some great footage of charges going off in both the twin towers and building 7. It’s the burning of the Reichstag all over again. I’m just hanging out for the day that it all comes out and people go HOLY FUCK THEY ORCHESTRATED ALL THIS!!! If that day ever comes …

  • Christopher Michael Whitehouse

    My only Question is in regard to the 9/11 pentagon incident…Where did the “plane” GO?? A Jetliner CANNOT fit through a 20′ hole. No seats,wings,luggage,landing gear,blood,clothes,bodies,tail,fuselage,engines,nothing.Where did it go?? 20foot hole through THREE RINGS…That plane is taller than the pentagon, yet the lawn isn’t even scuffed.

    • Tuna Ghost

      You’re pretty late to the party, but just for kicks: all those things you listed are not factual.

      • Christopher Michael Whitehouse

        not factual?…my ass it’s not show me ONE photo that shows ANYTHING resembling jetliner debris. . or are you saying that its not factual that a passenger plane hit the pentagon? “all the things listed”…wow. just like that ? not factual? hmm what about my question? not facyual. lawn not scuffed in photos. not factual. not factual. not.not.not……thats the kind of blanket response that SCREAMS bullshit. i ask my non-factual QUESTION one more time. WHERE is the debris from the plane? and PLEASE, can you find ONE photo that backs you up. i will upload many that will back me up, if needed. show me a fuselage section, seats, luggage. I was in the Air Force and know my way around a plane crash site.and being late to discussion doesn’t mean you should be so glib in your ALSO not factual non answer.

        • Christopher Michael Whitehouse

          oooh, right, this IS the disinfo site…like living in negative land…you are right fishbait, uh tuna ghost, those 9/11 events were not factual at all**backs away slowly**they were just collective hallucinations….bad dreams of children….not a fact. nope, uh uh, no way. nice. i am sorry i EVER thought to ask such a non’factual question, of COURSE that plane fit through that little hole, and vaporized.oops right, no plane, no hole, so, i am assuming that ALL of these events are not factual. wow, cool. you sure cleared that all up with that brilliant insight and in depth response. not factual. wow, explains EVERYTHING. thank you SO much….you should get an award or something….i am sure that is a huge relief to anyone concerened.

          • Christopher Michael Whitehouse

            and to quote tuna ghost itself “…..trolls. every.single.one” including this dead fish’s trapped essence. TROLL. i am now saddened for you tg….i dont think i have anything else. so thnx for the clarifications factmaster.

  • elizabeth croninger

    If our leaders acted sane and there was not a bizarre place like Bohemian Grove and the NSA director didn’t have a Star Trek set as an office I would say ok this is a skitz on a rampage. However everyone in power is turning out to be on the same level of skitz as the Navy shooter, so I think I will go with the wild conspiracy. I am waiting for a guy to walk into a gun and ammo store and go rampage.. the other day I saw a convenience store right next to a gun store that was inner connected and they sold ski masks. Someone could buy a gun then just take a few steps to rob the convenience store, THAT IS CONVEINENT.. THAT is crazy. This is not conspiracy too many people are being drugged by legal and illegal drugs and mass controlled by the media and porn which is starting to blur. One day I fully expect to see the News staff on Fox start stripping and licking the Teleprompters , is anyone’s mind in their control anymore.

  • DrDavidKelly

    People all say it wont work – what worked for Australia etc and maybe they’re right but doing nothing at all about the gun problem in the US will certainly yield a nothing result. To be sure that the American problem is exacerbated by the constitution, a violent culture, a powerful gun lobby and a vast criminal network. Issues that were not present in the Australian scenario. But if the US can’t try anything … you may as well get used to a background of ongoing shootings. I’d advocate a try anything approach – less guns has a better chance of leading to less gun violence.

    • The Well Dressed Man

      Affordable health care, especially mental health care, and accessible, quality education would address the root causes of violence more directly than gun control imo. While I’m not 100% comfortable with the sheer number of firearms in the states, I feel that it’s part of our culture. My ancestors in North America have been armed for centuries, for better and for worse.

      • DrDavidKelly

        Sure – like I said: I advocate a try anything approach. I bet a limit on firearms as well as an affordable mental health system would do wonders. You can still get a gun in Australia but you got to have a use for it. If you’re a farmer or a stockman or what have you then you have a reason to have a gun. If you do it for sport then sure … but here home defense aint a valid reason and I personally think that is a good thing.

        • The Well Dressed Man

          Point of view appreciated, as violence is deplorable.
          I don’t know enough about Australia to make an informed comparison, but I imagine that a variety of different factors are at work compared to the USA. Our gun culture is specifically one of self defense. Legal ownership of lethal weapons has been one of the rights enjoyed by the free in Western cultures since the feudal period, and the US is one of the few remaining nations to maintain this practice. It’s been argued that all the other rights are derived from the basic right to self preservation. I recognize that our society is far from perfect, but hold that our shortcomings in the areas of social welfare and economic opportunity are most egregious.

          Personal observations: My dad made sure I knew how to operate a pistol and rifle at the age of five. I’ve never pointed a weapon at a human. In my entire ill-spent, wayward youth, only once did someone pull a gun on me, and we both walked away with our dignity intact.

          In our coastal metropolises where gun ownership is curtailed, a culture of rudeness and aggression is evident. There is significantly more gun crime in California and Washington DC, where ownership is most heavily restricted, compared to the inner states with less regulation. I sometimes wonder if the friendliness and respect I notice in Texas has anything to do with the fact that anybody could be packing heat.

          • DrDavidKelly

            Strangely enough I was also taught how to fire a gun from a young age. One of my uncles had a farm and he was also a soldier. I’m sure my exposure to firearms was a lot less than yours but gun safety and proper use was always paramount. It’s never been that liberal in Australia, very very few people have guns. I don’t know a single person anymore who does. I wonder if the coastal states you speak of as having high gun violence have more to do with the pervasive culture than the restriction on firearms? My understanding (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that pretty much anyone can get a gun legally or otherwise anywhere in the states? That alone sets up pretty risky proposition. Put it this way – if the average Aussie wanted a gun they simply could not get one. It’s a very difficult thing to do unless you’re connected to organised crime or as I said work in a field that requires the use of firearms. Many people have said that the problem rests with the abundance of firearms as well as a culture of violence in the US. Any steps that would address these things sound like good steps IMHO. As for the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) scenario in Texas … well sounds like a pretty uneasy form of friendliness. To be sure comparing the USA and Australia isn’t really very helpful but I think we both agree that some form of action needs to be taken by the US government if they wish to curtail gun violence.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            I’m actually not sure we’re in agreement. The Federal Gov is by design limited. Our states and cities have somewhat more sway in enforcement, but are prevented by our constitution from banning ownership outright. Most large coastal cities have enough restrictions on gun ownership that one can only legally have the loaded, unlocked weapon on private property. We can defend our homes, but only criminals and police are actually armed in public.

            The more conservative inland states have extended concealed carry permits to almost all who can pass a background check. The high profile mass shootings, including the most recent, tend to occur in areas without concealed carry.

            I don’t go so far as to conclude that concealed carry is the largest demotivator for gun crimes. I do see a connection between the more traditional social structure in the gun areas and less crime. That Southern hospitality I noticed in Texas is more than just gun-wariness, but there is a connection. I see myself on the left of much of the political spectrum, but gun ownership is one area that I find myself a conservative.

            The US government needs to regulate Wall Street and invest in education, infrastructure, and health care. This federal action will deescalate the desperate circumstances that contribute to violence.

          • DrDavidKelly

            I appreciate what you are saying WDM and your arguments seem very sound but I fear that none of the solutions you propose will eventuate, not that I think overturning the constitution is a likely outcome either. I think short of these two necessary changes though little will stop the mass shootings. I guess it’s just going to more of the same until somebody can make some real changes.

    • alizardx

      Research Switzerland. Social stability has far more to do to what people do with access to weapons than the access to weapons themselves.

      • DrDavidKelly

        Perhaps but that was not the case in Australia. Our ‘social stability’ has changed very little. It was purely the access to weapons that stopped the mass shootings.

  • emperorreagan

    Every time I watch TV for a little bit, I find myself more convinced that those people who say that American media basically conditions people’s response to violence are correct.

    Violence is an acceptable answer whenever it is used by good guys and good guys are almost never hurt in the process. Bad guys who use violence deserve to be punished with more violence.

    Of course, in everyone’s own story they’re the good guy and the people who oppose them are the bad guys. And in the media, everyone who uses violence to an end not supported by the state is a bad guy. So you get someone who’s a little off kilter and you both have someone conditioned to use violence in their own hero’s journey and you have a populace/media that’s primed for hysteria because they’re a bad guy attacking the good guys!

  • godozo

    Switzerland has little crime – and everyone is armed. (and the government goes out of its way to not find out, may I add)
    Australia has little crime and has almost no guns.

    It ain’t the guns, it’s the people. More to the point, it’s Americans…and the leaders who’d rather have us shooting each other.

  • alizardx

    What’s the difference between “astrofoil” and “tinfoil”?

  • fizmath

    It’s called the inductive method. When you repeatedly see repeating patterns of suspicious activity in each event then you tend to suspect that we are not being told all the relevant details. For example, almost of all the young spree killers are on psych meds. Maybe we need to look into those instead of limiting gun rights. Many of them were also in government sponsored psychiatric experiments (MK ULTRA?) I am more concerned about the lone nutters who immediately swallow up what the media and the government tell them to think.

  • My 2 Cents

    That’s a rather cryptic remark in this article about the purpose of conspiracy theorists throwing up a smoke screen. Are the authors are trying to suggest that there is a conspiracy of conspiracy theorists?

    The Wired article, in contrast, is pretty straight-forward. They make the serious point that the navy yard shooter’s claim about harassment by electronic weaponry is consistent with non-disputed information about such weapons.

    A more complete analysis (and an archive of related published articles) for anyone interested in the subject can be found at “Fight Gang Stalking.”

  • MisterE23

    What I found interesting, is when I went to the article on Wired;s website, the first suggested article below it was:

    Report: Nonlethal Weapons Could Target Brain, Mimic Schizophrenia

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/02/report-nonletha/

    Now, I have heard some wacky theories about the cause of these killings, but I was also in Boston during the attacks and saw, first hand, the eerie wacked out mob chanting USA! USA! marching down the street. Just because something is out there doesn’t mean it is wrong, and just because something is obvious as a cause, doesn’t make it the cause. Analysis is needed!

21