Guardian article - Are the 2012 Olympics part of a plot to take over the world?

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Have you heard that the Aurora incident was carried out by the CIA to lay the foundation for a federal ban on private ownership of firearms?

Provided you're not joking, please provide some proof of this claim.

[ka9q]

That's (almost) the default NRA position. It's certainly widely believed enough for there to be a distinct rise in gun sales after such incidents...

I don't know if the rise in gun sales after a major tragedy has anything to do with NRA conspiracy fantasies; it has to do more with fantasies of individuals taking action and saving the day if it happens again.

That the real world is very different from their fantasies doesn't seem to matter. It's the fantasy that's important.

[gillianren]

A friend posted a link to a very thoughtful blog article the other day which was a man with much training in firearms--and actually being shot at--suggesting that people who think they could have done anything constructive were pretty much fooling themselves.  He said he understood why, but he didn't think he could have done any good, and he's been a cop, a mercenary, and in the military.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

it has to do more with fantasies of individuals taking action and saving the day if it happens again.

That the real world is very different from their fantasies doesn't seem to matter. It's the fantasy that's important.

I while back I read a sentiment echoed by an NRA official about the Virginia Tech massacre, in which he said that had the teachers and students been carrying guns the massacre would have been averted!

I wonder who the NRA would blame if students were killed in the confused and panicked shooting of the teachers and students attempting to defend themselves?

[Echnaton]

I would propose that a rise in gun sales after some tragedy like Aurora is more a response to the fear that the government might use it as an excuse to restrict sales, rather than a conspiracy to do so.  It probably kicks a few people into doing something they have been thinking about for a long time.  The strong desire by some segments of the government to ban sales is well in the open.  The motivating concern is that those forces within and outside of the government could exploit the tragedy to get there way and ban future purchases.  I am pretty sure that in the unlikely event that new gun restrictions do occur, people will have plenty of warning in order to buy a gun.  People will also be able to keep guns that they already own, rather than have the law convert millions of law abiding citizens into felons over night.

[Noldi400]

Provided you're not joking, please provide some proof of this claim.

Maybe I should rephrase. Have you heard the idiotic rumor that the Aurora... etc.

[ka9q]

A friend posted a link to a very thoughtful blog article the other day which was a man with much training in firearms--and actually being shot at--suggesting that people who think they could have done anything constructive were pretty much fooling themselves.

Exactly.

After the VPI shooting one of the police chiefs involved in the response pointed out that it would have been very difficult for them to tell the difference between the shooter and an armed student trying to save the day. Such an innocent third party could easily get shot by mistake.

This is a point I've been making for a long time: guns don't protect you, they make you vulnerable. Even if your intentions are benign, people can't read your mind and know that. All they can see is your gun and that makes them feel pressured to do something before you do.

[gillianren]

And my understanding is that the Aurora shooter was wearing a lot of body armour, so odds are pretty good that all anyone with a concealed weapon could do is shoot someone else in the audience.  A successful shot, I've read, would have had to have been a head shot.  The odds were much, much better that someone who'd had a concealed weapon would just have killed innocent bystanders trying to get their shot.

[ka9q]

During the Tucson shooting (which seems like yesterday) an armed civilian named Joe Zamudio was in a nearby drug store. He ran outside, clicked the safety off on his gun, and nearly shot a man holding a gun -- an innocent bystander who had just grabbed Loughner's gun.

Even highly trained agents have close calls. There's a fascinating story in the book "The Kennedy Detail", written by two members of JFK's Secret Service detail, Gerald Blaine and Clint Hill. (Hill was the agent who jumped on the back of the limo as JFK was shot). Like all the agents shortly after the assassination, Blaine was highly sleep-deprived and an emotional wreck. But he still had to work his shift protecting the new President; it was much too soon to conclude that there wasn't a larger plot. Late the following night, as he's standing guard outside LBJ's house, he hears a noise in the dark. He knows there are no other agents there, so he goes on high alert, cocks his gun and points it at the corner, waiting for whoever it is to show himself.

The next thing he knows, he's pointing his loaded and cocked submachine gun, with his finger on the trigger, at President Lyndon Johnson. Johnson turns white as a sheet but doesn't say a word. Apparently LBJ liked to take late night strolls around the house but nobody told the Secret Service agents who were now protecting him. Blaine reported the incident and I guess it was promptly forgotten. But it doesn't take much imagination to see how it could have turned out very differently.

[ka9q]

Here's the excerpt from The Kennedy Detail, pp264-265. I'm surprised this story hasn't gotten more attention:

Washington, DC
November 23, 1963
2:15 AM

Standing outside in the pitch-black darkness, Agent Jerry Blaine tried desperately not to yawn. He was on post at the rear corner of President Johnson's large two-story French chateau-style house close to the back door, and with the exception of the forty-five minute nap in Austin and some catnaps on flights, it had now been nearly sixty hours since he'd had any sleep. Blaine was almost to the point where he was hallucinating.

When he'd taken over from Andy Berger just before midnight, the two had simply looked at each other without saying anything. What could be said?

Blaine had been at this particular post for about fifteen minutes when he suddenly heard the sound of someone approaching from the clockwise direction. It wasn't rotation time, and he knew a Kennedy Detail agent would never approach from that direction.

Instinctively Blaine picked up the Thompson submachine gun and activated the bolt on top. The unmistakable sound was similar to racking a shotgun. He firmly pushed the stock into his shoulder, ready to fire. He'd expected the footsteps to retreat with the loud sound of the gun activating, but they kept coming closer. Blaine's heart pounded, his finger firmly on the trigger. Let me see your face, you bastard.

The next instant, there was a face to go with the footsteps.

The new President of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson, had just rounded the corner, and Blaine had the gun pointed directly at the man's chest. In the blackness of the night, Johnson's face went completely white.

A split second later, Blaine would have pulled the trigger.

President Johnson looked at Blaine, said nothing, and turned around and went back into the house.

Jesus Christ! I almost shot the new president. What the hell was he coming around the wrong way for?

With all the new security measures put into place that night, in the chaos nobody had thought to inform President Johnson about the standard counterclockwise movement protocol.

Blaine struggled to regain his composure as the reality of what had just happened washed over him. Fourteen hours after losing a president, the nation had come chillingly close to losing another one.

[Peter B]

I have a vague memory of a vigorous discussion on the old board following the Virginia Tech shooting.

My view on gun control is that fewer guns are better. I recognise the importance of personally owned firearms in a number of industries, but I'm not convinced of the value of firearms in self-defence or defence of the home.

I also reject the arguments people make that banning firearms, or some class of them, wouldn't have prevented the Aurora shooting, or the Virginia Tech shooting, or the Columbine shooting, or any number of other massed shootings in the USA. Yes, the shooters in each case could have obtained their firearms from some other source, but by increasing the number of steps the shooter had to go through to (a) obtain firearms and ammunition, and (b) operate their firearms, the fewer the casualties are likely to be. That is, if Holmes had had only (!) 20 shot magazines, he would have had to stop much more often to reload. Even more so if he'd been armed with six-shooters, or single shot weapons.

I still remember a story in the local newspaper of how a man had gone on a rampage with a large knife in a shopping centre somewhere in Australia, wounding seven people. It occurred shortly after a mass shooting in Australia killed seven people. The article was only a few sentences long, tucked down in one corner of about page five. I remember wondering what page the story would've been on, and how big it would've been, if the man had been armed with a firearm instead of a knife.

Having said all that, I recognise there are large cultural differences between Australia and the USA. We won our independence peacefully, and don't have many large and dangerous wild animals, both factors which play into a lesser underlying interest in firearm ownership in Australia.

[ka9q]

And my understanding is that the Aurora shooter was wearing a lot of body armour

Yes, he was, and that makes me wonder if even the police might have been initially confused. It was night and he was dressed much like they were.

[Laurel]

I have a vague memory of a vigorous discussion on the old board following the Virginia Tech shooting.

May I refresh your memory?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1560

[gwiz]

Have you heard that the Aurora incident was carried out by the CIA to lay the foundation for a federal ban on private ownership of firearms?

Provided you're not joking, please provide some proof of this claim.

Here's the usual conspiracy crowd discussing the possibility:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=230562

[twik]

Lots of reference to this idea at JREF.

Despite the fact that the US federal government has not, to my knowledge, made one solid suggestion regarding gun control in relation to the incident, and it's inspired no serious groundswell of public support. Everyone in the CT camp "knows" that they're going to, anyway.

Really, if the government can ban guns with no more support than they have right now, they wouldn't need a false flag attack.