Conspiracy theory on Tucson Shooting.

[SirNitram]

Link

TUCSON — Television images of the chaotic scene after the Jan. 8 shootings here do not convince them. Neither do the funerals for the deceased, the scars of the wounded or the federal prosecution of the man accused of being the gunman.

Some conspiracy Web sites are claiming that the shootings that nearly killed Representative Gabrielle Giffords and did end the lives of a federal judge, a 9-year-old girl and four others never actually took place. One particularly bizarre site, run by a Texas man, says it was all a government hoax that used actors.

Such obviously fantastic claims would usually not merit the attention of law enforcement, but they have in this instance because some believers have been confronting, and alarming, some of the people associated with the case in recent weeks.

Richard Kastigar, investigative chief of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, said he passed information about the Web site to his intelligence unit. He reacted angrily to those denying the shootings. “There were bodies sent to the morgue, people’s loved ones,” Mr. Kastigar said.

Manuel J. Johnson, a spokesman for the F.B.I., said the bureau was aware of the site, but he declined to say whether an investigation was under way. One shooting victim said he notified the F.B.I. recently after two men showed up at his Tucson home claiming to be investigators and saying they were trying to determine whether the shooting was a hoax.

“They tried to get into my home,” said the victim, who asked that he not be identified because it might attract more such visitors. “They wanted to know if I had any pictures. They said they didn’t believe the event took place.”

The victim said that when he pressed the visitors for identification, one of them presented a business card that listed the Texas conspiracy site, which describes the shooting as an exercise conducted by the Department of Homeland Security. Other people connected to the case, including hospital personnel, victims’ relatives and possible trial witnesses, have received similar visits or seen their images on the Web site, officials said.

The site, which solicits donations from visitors to help with its “investigation,” shows pictures of people who appeared on television after the shooting — including the suspect, Jared L. Loughner — and claims they resemble photographs of Tucson-area actors found on the Internet.

“We are only trying to uncover the truth and give the information to the Citizens,” the site says. “We would love nothing more than to debunk our own theory.”

Ed Chiarini, who runs the site, identifies himself as an inventor and Web entrepreneur. He could not be reached for comment.

The hoax contention did not surprise Benjamin Radford, a research fellow at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, who has written extensively on conspiracy theories.

“The bigger the story is, the more likely it is that someone will consider it a hoax,” Mr. Radford said. “In my experience, there is no belief that is so absurd or self-evidently wrong that someone won’t prescribe to it.”

Call me cynical, but I expect this to be spread by the gun industry. The reason is a quick survey of sites connected to it make this out as a false-flag to manufacture consent to take away guns. And fearmongering that results in more gun sales.

[Zaune]

Call me cynical, but I expect this to be spread by the gun industry. The reason is a quick survey of sites connected to it make this out as a false-flag to manufacture consent to take away guns. And fearmongering that results in more gun sales.

They couldn't be that stupid, could they? I mean this is beyond ridiculous; even assuming the Obama administration was crazy enough to sign off on a stunt like this, why make one of their own people fake permanent brain damage? You'd get the same result if a Republican congressperson got gunned down by some loony... well, nearly.

[FSTargetDrone]

Do any of you honestly think that the same kind of people who think that the attacks on 11 September were an inside job would have trouble believing the government was behind a faked shooting involving a relatively small crowd of people? This is small potatoes.

[Terralthra]

Thread title should be "Tucson".

[Alyeska]

Speaking of, a judge just ruled that Loughner is not mentally competent. I agree with the ruling. Loughner is really fucked up, mentally. The guy has serious issues but is also a clear danger to society. He needs treatment, and that would also protect society.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 06,00.html

[Mr. Coffee]

Call me cynical, but I expect this to be spread by the gun industry. The reason is a quick survey of sites connected to it make this out as a false-flag to manufacture consent to take away guns. And fearmongering that results in more gun sales.

They couldn't be that stupid, could they? I mean this is beyond ridiculous; even assuming the Obama administration was crazy enough to sign off on a stunt like this, why make one of their own people fake permanent brain damage? You'd get the same result if a Republican congressperson got gunned down by some loony... well, nearly.

I could make an argument that he's probably right just based on firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition sales figures before and after events like this taking place. For example, after Loughner went batshit there was a lot of talk of possible legislation banning high capacity magazines, and immediately there after there was a huge spike in purchases of high capacity magazines (particularly for Glocks).

The reason why I think such conspiracies are utter bullshit is that while such events cause short term boosts in sales, sometimes they also end up causing actual legislation restricting sales of certain types of firearms and accessories (think of the original NFA that was partially the result of all the gangsters in the prohibition era using a lot of automatic weapons or the Brady Bill that was one of the results of John Hinkly Jr. trying to cap President Reagan). The firearms industry, at least in the United States, has traditionally taken the long term view when doing things, so I really don't see them going for short term gains when in the long run they'll always make a profit since firearms are such a massively ingrained part of the American cultural identity. Them engineering stunts like the Loughner shooting would only result in shooting themselves in the foot over time (yes, pun fucking intended).

As far as the OP goes, shit like this is why if elected as your President one of the first things I will do is sign an executive order allowing rational citizens to beat conpiracy wonks with a length of garden hose until they stop spewing bullshit or they stop moving, which ever comes first.

[Zaune]

As far as the OP goes, shit like this is why if elected as your President one of the first things I will do is sign an executive order allowing rational citizens to beat conspiracy wonks with a length of garden hose until they stop spewing bullshit or they stop moving, which ever comes first.

But how would you get away with any real behind-the-scenes dirty work without those same conspiracy wonks running interference for you? Imagine having to pay people to pull this wibble out of their arses.

[Mr. Coffee]

But how would you get away with any real behind-the-scenes dirty work without those same conspiracy wonks running interference for you? Imagine having to pay people to pull this wibble out of their arses.

Yeah, one of the other things I'll do is create the Ministry of Shenanigans, whose sole purpose for being is to create conspiracies for people to latch onto so my fellow Americans can more easily identify conspiracy nuts and beat them with their Government-issue "Clue-by-4". All citizens will also be required to carry their Clue-by-4 or a 1m length of regulation garden hose at all times.

[Zaune]

If you ever actually get around to running for office, expect a large campaign contribution from me, even if only in homemade beer. I doubt civilisation as we know it would survive your first term, but it'd be totally worth it.

[Mr. Coffee]

Did I also forget to mention that one of my other executive orders will be to make Beer the official US currency? Vote Coffee in 2012, and thanks for your support.

[Edward Yee]

The only gun trend I noticed was AR-15 interest going way WAY up after President Obama got elected, only to slump late last year and earlier this year when it became (more) obvious that no major moves on gun legislation were forthcoming.

[Covenant]

Happens anytime someone comes into office with an agenda construed to be anti-gun. Frankly, I don't even know what you want with a high capacity magazine. It's not like you're going to go hunting deer or even varminting with your 9mm pistol, right? And if you did, do you really need 33 rounds to core some gophers?

It's not like there's a lot of purposes for a 9mm handgun other than shooting at people or being a toy, and having an extended magazine on the thing just seems goofy. Am I totally off-base here? Obviously, the guy who bought this one to shoot at Giffords did so because he WAS unhinged and wanted to shoot people, but are there any legitimate uses for these calibers and optional parts other than vanity and shooting targets for longer without reloads?

[LaCroix]

The only gun trend I noticed was AR-15 interest going way WAY up after President Obama got elected, only to slump late last year and earlier this year when it became (more) obvious that no major moves on gun legislation were forthcoming.

Shows how stupid these people actually are...

IF there were legislation against a type of weapon, they would also start to confiscate all of those weapons, won't they?
So I quickly buy myself a weapon that I can't even take to the range or talk about, for I will be in trouble if anybody gives the cops a tip and they come looking.

[LaCroix]

Happens anytime someone comes into office with an agenda construed to be anti-gun. Frankly, I don't even know what you want with a high capacity magazine. It's not like you're going to go hunting deer or even varminting with your 9mm pistol, right? And if you did, do you really need 33 rounds to core some gophers?

It's not like there's a lot of purposes for a 9mm handgun other than shooting at people or being a toy, and having an extended magazine on the thing just seems goofy. Am I totally off-base here? Obviously, the guy who bought this one to shoot at Giffords did so because he WAS unhinged and wanted to shoot people, but are there any legitimate uses for these calibers and optional parts other than vanity and shooting targets for longer without reloads?

Seriously, if you can't hit with 16-19 rounds, stop trying. And I would wonder if there would be any Gophers in sight after the first 2-3 shots. They tend to hide. So you could actually reload the magazine between shots...

Also, as far as I'm informed, these extended magazines are either a bitch to reload (as in you would need much longer to load one of them than to load two normal ones, and the time to change them, thus actually making you slower), or highly unreliable. Can anybody with actual knowledge comment on this?

[Edward Yee]

Depends on your definition of extended, considering that at one point "high-cap" included certain pistols' default, more-than-10-round magazines...

LaCroix, the main "reasonable" explanation I can think of is that had an AR ban gone anything like the Hughes Amendment, an AR that was manufactured/registered before a certain point could actually have been legal -- the "Hughes Amendment" to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 banned civilian ownership or transfer rights of "machine guns" that hadn't been registered as of May 19, 1986, but legalized civilian ownership and transfers of machine guns built/registered before then -- I believe that the 1989 import ban on semiautomatic rifles with various "assault weapon" features had a similar exemption.

I personally feel that the possibility of this may have influenced the interest and behavior akin to a "run on the bank/market," but I think a mix of "oh hey, no new major legislation on the way"* and the worsening economy helped dampen that... As a layman my reaction was more of "maybe they FINALLY hit the saturation point with all the different AR-15s out there? *then sees the latest lineup* No, no they haven't. " (In a weird way, it reminds me of the annual Call of Duty iterations...)

* Alternately, a recognition that such wouldn't be coming at the federal level.

[K. A. Pital]

Fixed title. I think that's crazy stuff which wouldn't go anywhere. Then again, the birthers were just a bunch of crazies first as well.

[Alyeska]

The only gun trend I noticed was AR-15 interest going way WAY up after President Obama got elected, only to slump late last year and earlier this year when it became (more) obvious that no major moves on gun legislation were forthcoming.

Shows how stupid these people actually are...

IF there were legislation against a type of weapon, they would also start to confiscate all of those weapons, won't they?
So I quickly buy myself a weapon that I can't even take to the range or talk about, for I will be in trouble if anybody gives the cops a tip and they come looking.

Extremely rare. None of the Federal legislation has EVER confiscated weapons. Only banned new ones from sale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_facto_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause

So if you're afraid of gun legislation, buy now and retain it later.

[LaCroix]

@Ayleska

That's ridiculous. Banning automatics, but all in circulation can remain. I try to come up with any comment, but my brain keeps shutting down when I try to comprehend this stupidity.

When "Pumpguns" were outlawed here (a silly move, but it was demanded by public opinion), people had a certain limited time-frame when they could hand these guns over - can't remember if they were compensated or not. After that, possession was illegal. Period. Anything else would have meant to introduce a two-class situation, and have made the ban toothless.

[Simon_Jester]

The law would be utterly unenforceable otherwise- there are simply too many Americans who own weapons in the categories that people propose to ban, and would insist on their constitutional right to keep the things, which they view as important property protected under the Second Amendment.

If you tried to chase down all the semiautomatic rifles in this country, you'd fail. Millions upon millions of people would bury the things in a box, or hide them in a closet, or otherwise wind up defying the new gun law. And every time someone was found in violation (which would happen frequently, for reasons unrelated to the gun ban), that person would have to be charged with a federal crime- you'd be making a whole new class of criminals, just like with the War on Drugs.

Meanwhile, a large subset of those people defying the law that requires them to turn in their guns would respond by developing increased contempt for all gun laws- remember how Prohibition went in the US, and how banning something many people wanted played into the hands of organized crime.

A small subset of those people would take the ban as strong evidence that the US government was finally about to go to full-on tyranny, and a handful of them might even commit serious crimes because of the gun ban.


You yourself said it: "pumpguns" in Austria were banned because of demand by public opinion. Well, there's not that much demand for gun bans in the US, outside of a few local areas. Without public support for a law which not only bans sale of a weapon but also confiscates existing examples, it's not practical to make the law stick, certainly not on the federal level. You can't do it without the general public accepting that the state has the right to round up the weapons, and exerting pressure on the minority of people who would otherwise keep theirs.

[Sidewinder]

@Ayleska

That's ridiculous. Banning automatics, but all in circulation can remain. I try to come up with any comment, but my brain keeps shutting down when I try to comprehend this stupidity.

When "Pumpguns" were outlawed here (a silly move, but it was demanded by public opinion), people had a certain limited time-frame when they could hand these guns over - can't remember if they were compensated or not. After that, possession was illegal. Period. Anything else would have meant to introduce a two-class situation, and have made the ban toothless.

Your profile says you're in Vienna, Austria. Did that nation or that city actually ban the sale of pump-action shotguns? Or does "pumpgun" mean something else in your native country's slang?

[Civil War Man]

I thought this thread was going to be about Loughner's deal in the courtroom claiming he killed Giffords and that there was a massive conspiracy on the part of the government, media, doctors, his defense attorneys, her husband, etc, to cover up her being dead.

I'm actually surprised there are so many conspiracy theories surrounding this. I mean, I can understand why stuff like the Holocaust, the moon landing, or the September 11th attacks might bring out the conspiracy loonies. They are large scale events that some people have trouble wrapping their heads around. Even conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination or the Branch Davidians are not too surprising, since a lot of the details were not immediately available. This, however, was a guy walking up to a crowd in broad daylight and opening fire. It was highly visible and there were almost no unknowns beyond the motivation of the shooter. It'd be like claiming that Jack Ruby didn't kill Lee Harvey Oswald, which I haven't heard from even the craziest JFK assassination conspiracy people.

They just don't make good conspiracy theories like they used to.

[Alyeska]

@Ayleska

That's ridiculous. Banning automatics, but all in circulation can remain. I try to come up with any comment, but my brain keeps shutting down when I try to comprehend this stupidity.

Post Facto laws are a very quick way to piss off the courts. They are also a very quick way to get voted out of office.

BTW, you should do some research. In the last 75 years there have been only three crimes committed with fully automatic weapons that were legal (all other media accounts were with illegally converted weapons, stolen police/military weapons, or imported illegal blackmarket). Two were done by police officers who would have had access regardless of civilian ownership. So allowing them to remain in ownership has had precisely zero impact on crime.

When "Pumpguns" were outlawed here (a silly move, but it was demanded by public opinion), people had a certain limited time-frame when they could hand these guns over - can't remember if they were compensated or not. After that, possession was illegal. Period. Anything else would have meant to introduce a two-class situation, and have made the ban toothless.

New York decided to outlaw and confiscate. It did so using under handed tactics and outright lying to gun owners in the process. As a result many of the rural communities in New York State started voting more conservative legislators into office to counter act NY City officials from taking over the entire state legislator on gun control.

The current ban on new fully automatic weapons is not toothless. It created a limited supply. As a result existing weapons are extremely expensive. A used M16 costs $16,000 or more. And as I pointed out the number of crimes are statistically equivalent to zero. So their banning was a solution in search of a problem.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Happens anytime someone comes into office with an agenda construed to be anti-gun. Frankly, I don't even know what you want with a high capacity magazine. It's not like you're going to go hunting deer or even varminting with your 9mm pistol, right? And if you did, do you really need 33 rounds to core some gophers?

High-capacity is a catch-all term for any kind of magazine that hold more rounds than the standard magazine the weapon uses, everywhere except California where it's a 10-round limit.

It's not like there's a lot of purposes for a 9mm handgun other than shooting at people or being a toy, and having an extended magazine on the thing just seems goofy. Am I totally off-base here? Obviously, the guy who bought this one to shoot at Giffords did so because he WAS unhinged and wanted to shoot people, but are there any legitimate uses for these calibers and optional parts other than vanity and shooting targets for longer without reloads?

They are goofy, which is why it's so weird why people would want to legislate them. Remember the reason Loughner was stopped was because he fumbled a reload, standard capacity and low-cap magazines are easier to reload with.

Since I'm unsure what you meant by it: what do you mean by talking about the caliber?

@Ayleska

That's ridiculous. Banning automatics, but all in circulation can remain. I try to come up with any comment, but my brain keeps shutting down when I try to comprehend this stupidity.

There have only been two shootings with one of those legal full-auto weapons since 1936 in the US. One was a mobster in '36 or '37, the other was a dirty police officer who took it from the police armoury to kill an informant who was going to give him away. The cheapest of those guns is $1500 dollars, the cheapest assault rifles and actual MGs are >$15000. In fact according to the head of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms in the 90s the most prevalent crime committed with an NFA weapon is a failure to inform the BATF of the owner's change of address which occurred less than ten times.

[LaCroix]

@Sidewinder Yes. For some (stupid) reason, Pump-action Shotguns were outlawed after something happened that involved them. Not only sale, but possession, as well. I believe it's still ok if you have a licence for military grade weapons (you wish!).

The weapon has an extremely bad public image here, so noone thought logically. If you were to use a lever action Shotgun (Winchester style), it would be ok. For some reason, the 'Pumpgun' falls under the category of weapons that are looking very menacing or something like that. (Bullshit, if you ask me, I'd be shitting my pants as hard if you point a .38 at my face...)

@Simon/Alyeska
I did not refer to the impact of the ban, or wether it was the right thing to do, but on the implementation of it.
If I outlaw a type of gun because of its perceived danger to society, I have to remove them from circulation.
If it's not dangerous enough to try to remove it from circulation, I don't need to ban the sale.

Making some of them more expensive doesn't really make it any harder for them to be stolen or obtained from illegal sources. If I were to buy a illegal automatic, chances are that it is an AK or anything that is in high supply, and it would be probably cheaper than anything on a gun fair. Or I'd get a conversion kit.

But I understand the point that a full ban on any weapon is unenforceble in the United States.

[Edward Yee]

re: outlawing "a type of gun," just remember that what they got through legally was a ban (or at least restriction) on new manufactures and possession/transfers of such new manufactures -- I guess the votes just weren't there for "outlaw the type of gun(s) overall."

From what I understand, nowadays the main critique about the federal level from *ahem* "reasonable" gun owners (that is, who hold "legal firearms possession" separately from the rest of their politics) is that the BATFE is (or comes off as) inconsistent about what qualifies as what and (at least to this layman) its definitions can come off as arcane.