Would you be in favor of publishing the crime scene photos from Sandy Hook?

[Bay Boy]

I am suggesting this as a way of shocking the public and politicians in going forward with gun control measures that have been in the news since this tragedy. I'm speaking of assault weapons bans, magazine limts and universal background checks.

[Scuba]

1. ...

[Cleita]

2. No. Remember children would see those pictures and they shouldn't.

I do believe our politicians would have access to them and probably should see them. But no publishing them to the general public is not a good idea.

[marions ghost]

34. The general public

should have access to what politicians have access to. But I agree it should be limited access. I don't think most TV networks would show them anyway. But I have a problem with protecting the public in this way. It easily leads to hiding things.

[Cleita]

71. Most of the time I would agree with exceptions like this.

There are certain things you don't want to get into the hands of children, porn is one and this is another. I'm grateful that I never had to see holocaust pictures until I was much older. I don't think as a child I could have handled it well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. You know...no...kids are capable of more than

When I was growing up we were shown pictures of Bergen Bellsen and Aushwitz as early as 9. I dd not grow up in the US...I admit.

Americans are way over protective.

Oh and you know what? There are crime scene photos in circulation from around the word that are just as horrific...they are on the web. Any kid with an inch of curiosity has found them.

Nope, we do not have the exclusive of walking in pools of blood after a mass shooting, we just do it more often outside a combat zone. What we have is a penchant not to show them, which shields us from the true horrors. I don't know about you, but I am tired of being treated like a three year old by my own government. And they do it to avoid the demands for change.

Oh and one more thing, we used to run them the 1933 legislation regulating machine guns partly came from the scene photos f the Valentine Day Massacre...look for them, they are back and white, but they are online.

[Cleita]

107. I know they are out there. Fortunately, a lot of the old ones are in black and white

so not as vivid as in color. I still think children should not have to look at other dead children particularly since the Sandy Hook victims pretty much look like hamburger from what I heard.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. But adults should.

All adults, especially those in denial.

Kids, leave the room...that was used to run on the TV when something was believed to be too graphic.

Don't worry, our press is way too timid to run a little blood, like from a car crash...they won't run Noah Pozner with a missing jaw. (And they should)

[get the red out]

3. No

Not of those murdered babies. It wouldn't work, it would backfire anyway.

[RZM]

6. Absolutely. It would backfire for sure

Terrible idea.

[MNBrewer]

125. How would it "backfire"

[get the red out]

129. "Look at those LIBRULS"

They would say, "stomping all over the bodies of dead kids to try to TAKE OUR GUNS! And destroy the constitution, they'd do anything to take your rights if they would do THAT".

I can hear 'em now, with MSM covering ever word. The debate would no longer be about preventing another horrific disaster like that, but be about how immoral the left must be to use it so explicitly.

[MNBrewer]

131. So then it's simply a matter of messaging?

[get the red out]

132. Yes, in my opinion

I think publicizing the bodies of the poor kids would give the gun lobby the distraction it needed to veer the entire topic off course. JMO. But they obviously are fully willing to consider dead kids collateral damage.

[MNBrewer]

140. Then people on the other side will have to steer it back on course.

[booley]

142. those people wouldn't care anyway

They already think that. In fact many beleive that these murders are some kind of plot to confiscate guns. As far as they are concerned, the numerous dead are not important as their fear of losing their guns.

No image will break through that kind of narcissistic victim complex.

So we concentrate on the ones that aren't as emotionally invested in having any kind of gun possible and still capable of empathy.

Believe it or not, that includes many gun owners.

[alfie]

4. Yes

Michael Moore had some good comments on this.

[demwing]

19. + 100% /nt

[Whisp]

5. no!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Absolutely not.

If the incident itself didn't shock people enough, the photos won't do it. And it would be a horrible thing to inflict on the families of those children.

[RZM]

8. No

I understand the sentiment, but I don't think it's necessary. People already know that murder scenes are bloody.

[Myrina]

9. No.

Photos of those 20 children alive and joyous and the knowledge that they are now gone should be enough. If that doesn't make the gun nuts stop and think, nothing will.

[Aristus]

16. Nothing will.

Gun nuts don't think; if they did, they wouldn't be gun nuts...

[Gravitycollapse]

10. Yes, I think they should be available for public viewing.

No, I do not think we should use it to strong arm people into supporting gun control.

[Marrah_G]

11. No

The families have had enough pain to last a lifetime.

[HappyMe]

12. Absolutely NOT!

[LiberalFighter]

13. Absolutely NOT!!

Rather than having them floating around. Keep it to private display in closed hearings for that purpose.

[lpbk2713]

14. No

We already know there was a lot of carnage. Why other than
ghoulish fascination would anything more be necessary?

[Tikki]

15. NO Never...

[mainer]

17. The photos should be sent to James Tracy

and shoved in his face. Anyone who's a Newtown "truther" needs to be confronted with those photos.

http://memoryholeblog.com/about/

[demwing]

18. I agree with Michael Moore - Yes, show the photos

If we have to see this tragedy in all it's detail to take down the NRA, then do it.

[demwing]

21. Moore's comments here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022498575

[marions ghost]

102. Wow.

That is blistering. Very persuasive.

[OneGrassRoot]

23. I agree as well. So long as the majority of their parents agree...

then I feel they should be released.

I am torn as it concerns the families, if they don't want them released. Otherwise, yes, I do feel there are many people who need to see the horror to absorb it and to make it real.

We may not need that reality check here at DU, but others do. Again, Michael Moore makes that point, as you said.

[RZM]

33. I don't think a majority would be enough

I think that's the kind of thing you need unanimity for. And I doubt anybody could get it. Even a majority is probably out of the question.

[lapislzi]

116. You would be surprised at the depth and sensitivity of the Sandy Hook parents

Almost to an individual, they are extraordinary people, and united in their grief. No one judged Noah's mom for her actions, and no one (at least not this group) will judge any of the others for measured actions intended to influence a positive outcome. I think the answer you would get is, "if it would help advance the conversation, then it's a good idea."

[RZM]

117. I'm sure you're right

I don't know much about the families, but I know it takes great strength to make it through something like this. I also understand that many will be involved with gun violence prevention in the future.

Personally I don't think it's a good idea to publish photos from the crime scene. But if the families were behind it 100 percent, I would support it.

[marions ghost]

28. This is an important question in the struggle to get sanity where guns are concerned

I wonder what the Sandy Hook parents would say. If I were one of these parents I would say yes--show selected ones, in a restricted way--which means NOT over and over on television.

I don't know how the parents would feel about it. And that would be the deciding factor. If enough parents agreed to their children being shown, then I am for it. Provided it was done with sensitivity and for the purpose of getting legislative action.

I agree that pictures would constitute a crucial weight of evidence against the NRA. People have to see it to believe it.

[Bay Boy]

51. I just can't imagine how

they could be published with sensitivity. And regardless of how it would be done initially, once it's shown it will be out on the internet forever. And who knows what somebody would do with them.

[marions ghost]

103. True

but what would somebody do to them that is worse than what has already been done to the kids?

As far as photos living on in the internet--I guess I think that's better than hiding them, making it seem that it's over now (while we wait for the next one, and the next one)...

There are lots of terrible things on the internet. Warnings, maybe even a site you'd have to register on to view them.

Sanitized wars, sanitized massacres. Everything hidden. This is a public health issue of huge proportion. I have to agree with Michael Moore. Show some of these pictures if we really want any controls on these weapons of mass destruction. Already the legislators are backing off of doing anything.

[Initech]

54. Something has to take down the NRA.

What's even more disturbing though is these frothing at the mouth psychotic gun nuts who are convinced this didn't happen and are threatening the parents of the victims. If that can't get these fucking lunatics to shut up I'm convinced nothing can.

[Le Taz Hot]

20. No.

I think people have the full horror of what was done to those beautiful little babies. We don't need a graphic reminder.

[warrior1]

22. no, never

[SheilaT]

24. Maybe. Most people have absolutely no idea what

kind of destruction is done to a human body with high-powered assault rifles. Hollywood and TV tends to show quite neat holes, even if they show a fair amount of blood. They don't show what the body really looks like.

Certainly, those who think that Sandy Hook was a hoax should look at the photos. Also anyone who casually dismisses the thousands who die every single year in this country from bullets should take a good look.

Little children are invariably so beautiful, so joyous, that for me the pictures of those 26 children in life is enough to move me to tears. Since my children are grown, and I have no grandchildren at this point, I can't begin to guess how I would feel about this if it were my child or grandchild murdered this way.

keep in mind that Emmit Tills's mother insisted on an open coffin so that everyone could see what was done to him.

Here is a link to what that child (and a 14 year old is a child) looked like in life, and what he looked like in death.
http://www.onthisdeity.com/28th-august-1955-%E2%80%93-the-lynching-of-emmett-till/

[riverbendviewgal]

29. I am a mother

I lost a son to cancer. I looked at Emmit Till's picture in the link you provided. It was sickening and I could feel the mother's pain.

The sandy hook pictures should be shown.

[Bay Boy]

58. There is a big difference...

...Mrs Till did this to expose the bigoted killers and not the weapons they choose to use.
Michael Moore wishes to publish the pictures to condemn the weapon and not the mentally disturbed
person who committed the crime.

[SheilaT]

66. But no one is murdered in a vacuum that only contains the gun and not the person who used it.

That's why "Guns don't kill people" is such a stupid thing to say. Without the guns far fewer people would die.

I also think that only focussing on assault weapons, and only focussing on mentally ill persons are also red herrings. How many "responsible" gun owners leave their guns out where little kids find them? As it turns out, about a dozen times a week.

It's my opinion that guns should be severely restricted. I know I'm in a tiny minority, but isn't it just a little odd that other countries manage just fine with fewer guns. And exponentially fewer gun deaths. Do you suppose there's a connection?

[cry baby]

25. Not the crime scene photos, but if the parents of one or more

of the children's parents decided to publish the photos of their children after the massacre to help bring an end to these kinds of killings, I would support them in their decision.

I, of course, respect their decision not to publish if that is what they decide.

[marions ghost]

36. Agree

the parents would have to allow this. If it were me I would do it, to help my child's senseless death mean something. Because nothing else would be as effective. But other parents might feel very differently.

[The Straight Story]

26. Is that like the right publishing pics of aborted babies? (nt)

[wryter2000]

79. Aborted fetuses aren't babies n/t

n/t

[The Straight Story]

86. Ok...how about human life form at some stage then? (nt)

[riverbendviewgal]

27. yes.

Those who wish to see them should have the option and the NRA must see them. There is no choice for them.

[Glitterati]

30. No

Just. No.

[HereSince1628]

31. DUers can't tolerate a picture of a sheep bitten by dogs

in a thread debating whether sheep owners should shoot such dogs.

I cannot believe that publishing pictures of the carnage from Sandy Hooky would be acceptable to DUers

[Jennicut]

32. No. This is about the parents having privacy.

And the young victims having dignity. I live in Connecticut and this is still so raw and new for many of us. It's just not necessary. It won' t change minds, it will just exploit dead young children. And as a parent of two little girls myself, I could never allow anyone but family or close friends to see those photos (and those officials involved). That would be my pain, not anything to share for "shock" purposes. Repubs who worship guns would be unmoved anyway.

[SoCalDem]

44. Emmitt Till's Mom's refusal to have a closed coffin FORCED people to look at her

battered son..and there was no denying what had happened to him.. It galvanized the movement.

If the parents wanted to immortalize their kid's deaths, this might be the way. They have seen the pics/bodies.. perhaps it's time to share the agony with people who could no longer pretend to not know the grisly details..

We pay cops, ER people, doctors, pathologists, morticians to hide the ugliness.. They see the guts & gore for us..maybe it;s time we all shared in it..

[cali]

48. Yes, if every single parent agrees. That's exceedingly unlikely.

[Jennicut]

123. Judging from what the parents have said on the local news here

I doubt anyone will be seeing those photos at all. It is not going to change the minds of the ultra right wing anyway. They are in the minority. They are the ones bolstering the NRA. It is just the minority controls Repubs in Congress due to primaries and frightens more conservative Dems. It's cowardice and pictures of dead children will not change their minds if all they think about is their Senate Seat or staying the House of Reps.

[southernyankeebelle]

35. I told my husband months ago that they should show the pictures. That will solve alot.

[Capt. Obvious]

37. Yes

[Arkansas Granny]

38. No.

[upaloopa]

39. Why can't you use your imagination?

20 kids shot in multiple places lying dead in a class room.
That sure is shock enough for me.
You can't force those you think should see them to look at them. And just who are you to say someone else should have to look at them.

[Retrograde]

40. People purchasing assault weapons should be required to view them

If some states can require women seeking abortions to view ultrasound images of the embryo or fetus, why not require assault weapons purchasers to view pictures of people killed with those weapons? They should also be required viewing for lawmakers voting on limitations on such weapons or ammunition.

Me, I do not want to see them: my imagination is bad enough.

[Bay Boy]

63. That makes sense in some sort of weird

demented way. I'd be curious what a politician who advocates showing aborted babies prior to an abortion would think of your idea?

[SoCalDem]

41. Not necessarily PUBLISHING them, but EVERY legislator should be forced to see them

..perhaps with some photoshopping of their grandkids' faces...

Juries have to see the gory autopsy/crime scene pics, so should legislators..and every NRA member should be sent the grisly pics too..

[haele]

42. With warnings beforehand, yes. Not on the front page of the newspaper, or plastered on signs, but

so long as a majority of people can pretend that getting shot with high-capacity military-style weapons is like some sort of Hollywood production, where if you're lucky "it's only a flesh wound" when you get hit, the information they use to make their own opinions is flawed and the seriousness of the question on gun regulations before them is compromised.

People who hunt, people who have actually shot something living may understand the damage that even a small plinker of a gun can do, but frankly, the majority of the average Americans - "gun owner" or not - have no clue.

Again, warnings before hand because of the graphic nature, and provision of the truth in the narrative. None of those fake bloody fetus crap posters ("This is your baby at 20 weeks" when it's a picture of a late-term miscarriage...) the anti-choice boobs lie constantly about, but the truth about what a military weapon does to a person. The truth is what is important to inform the conversation, not opinions.

Just my two cents.
And yes, I've seen what a shotgun, what a .38 caliber, and what military rifles can do to people at close and medium ranges - starting from when I was 12.

Haele

[SQUEE]

43. For the General public.. no

But Wayne should, Ted Sshould, any one of the NRA reps should, if they ever want to speak before congres. Before he opens his trap in support of the manufacturing interests, he should be handed a folder, and asked to just think on them a moment before he starts his spiel.
But thats just because I am sick of the NRA claiming to be my advocate.

[marions ghost]

73. Wayne doesn't see what he doesn't wanna see

--even if his eyes looked at them, his heart is not connected. Waste of time.

[Quantess]

45. Maybe...

[musical_soul]

46. Just what we need, a country ran on emotions.

Sort of reminds me of when people against abortion use pictures of aborted fetuses to try to get their points across.

How about facts instead?

There are horrific stories of people being killed by guns, but there are also stories about guns saving lives.

http://gunssavelives.net/

I personally think the right's cry that the second amendment is about to be taken away is silly. I don't mind background checks. I don't mind less bullet holes, although I don't think it's necessary.

However, I don't want this country becoming so full of emotion that it throws away all rational discussion on the subject.

[marions ghost]

65. It's an emotional topic

I'm sure the Sandy Hook parents would agree. A lot of people own guns for purely emotional reasons rather than logic--wouldn't you agree?

In equating this to aborted fetus photos. I see your point but I'd have to say there's a difference between a mother choosing to terminate a pregnancy and a stranger gunning down your children. The Sandy Hook incident is more like a battle scene or a scene of war atrocities. Something we are not supposed to see. But we must see.

[cali]

47. Not unless every single family who lost someone agreed.

without that it's just rank exploitation.

[marions ghost]

52. how about if

some allowed their own children to be shown. Others who did not allow, were not shown?

[cali]

53. yes. that's OK. In my mind, it really is a decision for the families and no one else.

[Paladin]

49. I Strongly Suspect That The Photos Will Come Out, One Way Or The Other. (nt)

[MadrasT]

50. No. n/t

[graham4anything]

55. I agree with Michael Moore- YES.

[LAGC]

93. You are in the extreme minority.

Along with Michael Moore.

Leave these gross-out tactics to the anti-abortion nuts, waving pictures of dead fetuses around.

[graham4anything]

100. the OP should have wrote this was Michael Moore's idea, not an original idea

To put a context on it, one needs to read the Michael Moore letter.

It's probably why the people of NYC have a different view, even though we are more liberal than the vast majority of the nation, to the whole terrorist situation. Because of the repetition of seeing it for weeks on end, while most of the nation did not see the pictures after the first few days due to the major stations embargo of it.

[99Forever]

56. Oh no...

... let's sanitize the news and never show the reality of the results of having guns readily available to virtually anyone that wants one. After all...

Dey gotta RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you're trying steal their FREEDOMS.

[Carolina]

94. while I am torn about this

you have an excellent point, made tongue in cheek.

It was the nightly news images of soldiers wounded in Vietnam that helped bring that war to an end. That's why the Bush cabal chickenhawks chose to sanitize the carnage in Iraq and even forbid images of flag-draped coffins arriving at Dover AFB.

I do think that murder has been sanitized as well. Americans see people beaten and shot in movies yet the wounded keep getting up or the wounds are nice, clean circles. Those of us in medicine know that the reality is anything but clean and neat. So, there is something to be said about exposing gun violence injuries to the light of day.

But the devil, as always, is in the details... in what manner and to what audience without violating privacy issues or, importantly, damaging the prosecution a given crime, etc.

[Lebam in LA]

57. No

[DinahMoeHum]

59. NO.

.

[jeff47]

60. When right-wingers show pictures of aborted fetuses, do you suddenly become anti-choice?

I understand the sentiment for showing the pictures.

However, it will not do what you want it to do.

[baldguy]

61. The people that should see them won't want to,

and the sickos who get off on that sort of thing would see them too much.

[ZombieHorde]

62. Using those children as propaganda seems distasteful to me. nt

[dawg]

64. No.

Not ever.

[krispos42]

67. They should be available to the public.

It's a public record. If the papers and the internet-based news and commentary sites wants to publish it, that's their decision.


Of course, there are thousands of people killed per year with guns, and hundreds of thousands of game animals, so we all know what that looks like. Splashing dead children all over the front page isn't going to change the fact that the gunman didn't use an "assault weapon", picked a target that had essentially nobody to stop him physically, had 11 minutes of uninterrupted shooting time, had no criminal record barring him from buying guns, and changed magazines at least twice during the rampage.


But if you want to wave bloody pictures of dead children around so you can pass a ban on protruding pistol grips, you can go right ahead.


I have no objection to universal background checks, providing it doesn't require registration, and in fact I've posted on here several times ways this could be performed in a fast and convenient manner with enough of a paper trail to find a gun buyer fast, if needed, with a court order.

[RC]

68. If that is what it takes to get some sensible weapons laws in this country, then YES!

Show the pictures in living color. Have a 2 hour prime time TV special. Show the sheltered innocents what shot dead humans look like from up close. Show the weapons used. Show what happens to the gel blocks that imitate human meat, when shot by AR-15 and Bushmasters at close range.
Canada has the right idea on gun control. Start there for ideas on what is needed in this country.

Enough is enough already.

[spedtr90]

69. Noah Pozner's mother insisted on an open casket..

... because she hoped it would help Gov. Malloy pass gun control legislation.

After the shootings, she insisted on seeing Noah's body, not a photograph of it. And she insisted on an open casket at his funeral. She also purposefully brought the governor to look at it because, "If there is ever a piece of legislation that comes across his desk, I needed it to be real for him. It was real. Noah took 11 bullets. His mouth and jaw were blown away; a cloth covered that part of his face. Most of his left hand was gone. The governor wept. Maybe he'll remember."

Her description of her son's body was powerful. NO pictures are needed. But I don't think her words made it into many reports.

" I just want people to know the ugliness of it so we don’t talk about it abstractly, like these little angels just went to heaven. No. They were butchered. They were brutalized. And that is what haunts me at night.”

“I owed it to him as his mother, the good, the bad, the ugly … It is not up to me to say I am only going to look at you and deal with you when you are alive, that I am going to block out the reality of what you look like when you are dead. And as a little boy, you have to go in the ground. If I am going to shut my eyes to that I am not his mother. I had to bear it. I had to do it."

https://www.commondreams.org/further/2013/02/05-1

[freshwest]

74. +1

[Fresh_Start]

70. I would support individual parents who decided that they needed their childs story to be known

But I wouldn't force it upon unwilling parents.

There was one mom who I think had an open casket service for her son since she thought the truth should not be hidden.
It doesn't have to be unanimous by all the parents.

[Demo_Chris]

72. Yes. The public does not need to be protected from reality n/t

[petronius]

75. No, but I would support an individual parent/parents if that was what they

chose to do with the images of their own child.

I wouldn't advise it, however - given the degree to which gore-porn floods across the internet and lasts forever. Particularly if they have other children...

[JI7]

76. it would be up to the parents and other family of the victims

[southern_belle]

95. +1 n/t

[wryter2000]

77. Only if released by the parent(s) of the child/ren involved n/t

n/t

[arely staircase]

78. no, i think

i like your thread for bringing it up. but my first gut instinct is no.

[NYC Liberal]

80. They will probably come out, even if they're not published in the mainstream media.

You can easily find photos from Columbine, for example.

[jberryhill]

81. Nein

[DonRedwood]

82. Yes. And we will remember them for the rest of our lives. Just like their parents.

And we will think of them as the NRA says guns are good.

And it will change everything.

Seeing the results of gun violence is probably the only way to stop it.

[Crepuscular]

83. Show the photos

Censorship is rarely an appropriate measure, we are adults. freedom of information includes images that are uncomfortable to look at. Why would these pictures be tangibly different then images taken in Nazi concentration camps, in terms of demonstrating man's inhumanity to mankind?

[spanone]

84. it may be the only way to wake this fucking country up.....

[CincyDem]

85. I hate to say this - yes

The unfortunate reality is that these things happen and sweeping them under the rug, out of the public's vision, is at some level a denial mechanism.

It's the same with the draft - we moved the last decade of carnage in the middle east away from dinner tables around the country by eliminating the draft. A draft would have brought many more people into the discussion demanding a truthful assessment of Iraq and demanding an accounting from those who purposefully misled us.

Sandy Hook happened but there is no reality to most Americans. It really is out of sight, out of mind. Before and after photo of these kids enjoying their world one day and destroyed the next might be what it takes to shake this country out of it's paralysis about guns and/or crazy people.

The question about using it to "pressure" the country for stricter gun laws - hey why not. It's always fun to see an 8-point buck on the hood of a Ford F-150 as the picture of guns in America. Nothing like a svelte PBO sighting down on a clay pigeon to make the point that this is all about sportsmen.

Not so fun when the view of guns in America is 20 kids spread out around a grammar school in various contortions of attempted yet impossible escape. Let's focus on pictures of the collector with his shiny guns in a velvet box. Let's focus on the target shooter with his goggles, earpads, and paper targets. Let's focus on some guy in a convenience store who stopped some kids from robbing the candy counter. All great images that we love to see.

But make sure we hide the other reality. Kids lying on the floor of a schoolroom, or a movie theater, or a shopping mall, or a street corner. Cops who run into this stuff say things like "I'll never be the same". Well maybe that's just we need as a country is to see this stuff and say "we'll never be the same".

I agree that kids seeing this will be an issue - and maybe that's what it takes for parents to wake up to what's possible out there.

I agree that this will be hard on the parents - and maybe seeing their pain in the context of their babies will finally be enough to get someone's attention.

So yeah, I absolutely hate to say it but I would show the pictures because what I hate more is the knowledge that there will be another 20 someday because we didn't learn the lessons from these 20. As long as we keep the reality of what unfettered gun access is doing to this country, it will keep doing it.

Let the stoning begin.

[Ricochet21]

87. we need to see them

but not the children "viewers"

[DevonRex]

88. Their parents didn't have the luxury of hiding from the reality of

what our culture did to their children. Why should we be able to bury our heads in the sand while they and so many others bury their loved ones? As a matter of fact, I believe we should see the funeral of the infant who was shot and killed in Chicago A day or so ago. Maybe the sight of a coffin 2 feet long would shake some people up. Maybe inspire some protests.

[Bay Boy]

89. But shouldn't they be given the 'luxury' of...

...deciding whether their children's mutilated bodies are forever displayed on the internet?

Once they are shown they will be out there FOREVER. How would you like to be one of those parents;
not knowing when your child's body will pop up on the internet while you on your computer?

[DevonRex]

97. I know it's horrific. I have 2 sons.

One thing I know. A day will not pass that they don't think of what happened. Those images will be in their minds forever. They will come unbidden at the worst moments whether they are on the internet or not. When they're awake and when they're asleep. When they're celebrating and when they're working.

What I think needs to happen is the families should get together and decide. Any photos that contain more than one victim would have to be approved by the families of each victim in the photo. Another thing is that there will many photos that don't show faces and those might be easier for the families to deal with, but they will certainly make an impact on the public.

What I have in mind is more of a documentary that would have bits of home movies and family photos, showing the happy times of each child. So that we get a feel of the children as real little people, of their personalities and potential, their mischief-making and their joy. Each and every one. And then the photos at the very end, just a minute, maybe 2 (I think 2 is too long) making sure to get each one - not necessarily by face - and then the film ends in the parking lot with the bewildered and scared parents from the news clips. Then a message about the need to change our gun control laws.

[Hoyt]

90. The gun cultists would just buy more guns, and want one like Lanza used.

Congress people would just ask the NRA for more money to oppose what everyone knows needs to be done.

[marions ghost]

105. The gun lovers will do that anyway...

the importance of the pictures would be showing to others who still do have a conscience and a heart.

[Kalidurga]

91. No

The parents and other victims have already lost enough. They don't need to lose their right to privacy as well. Or have it forced upon them to have those pictures made public.

[Nye Bevan]

92. No. Never, ever, ever. What a disgusting notion. (nt)

[longship]

96. Not only no, fucking hell no! nt

[mwrguy]

98. Yes

Let the gun nuts see what they've done.

[MichiganVote]

99. So that nutty gun people can compare the bullet holes for which kind

of ammunition to buy?

[kairos12]

101. Gun trolls would say the pictures were fake and mock them, so no

[Luminous Animal]

104. We seem to have no problem looking at the mutilated bodies of Iraqi

and Pakistani children that our soldiers have blown to bits. Somehow that hasn't put a damper on our blood lust.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Actually the US media has run almost none of those photos

You gotta work to find them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. Yes...valentine day massacre scene photos ran on the front page

They led to change.

And that is but be example. Also Americans are treated like kids by their government...enough of this cuddling.

[Generic Other]

110. Yes because we are all complicit

Last edited Thu Mar 14, 2013, 12:11 AM - Edit history (1)

like the good Germans. Sucks. But it is true. They are sparing us the genuine reactions we should all have. It allows students to state to me that the whole event was a hoax. This is what happens when there are no witnesses.

[marions ghost]

111. Really?

Students believe it was a hoax? Pretty sick hoax.

[Generic Other]

114. someone on the internet is propagating the idea

Totally irrational but coming from birther types, not that surprising.

[marions ghost]

115. And even while they buy the lie

they know it is a lie. But that's easier than facing the truth. Delusion is always easier.

The people who invent and spread these lies--may they end up in the ninth circle of hell.

[Politicub]

112. I'm with Michael Moore. We mustn't avert our gaze.

The gun debate needs a dose of reality to make it less abstract.

[slackmaster]

118. The only place that kind of image belongs is in a mandatory gun safety class in public high schools

They showed the films Signal 30 and Signal 40 when I took driver training.

[winter is coming]

119. No. It would traumatize the families and survivors of mass shootings

and the number of people whose minds mind by changed by this shock tactic is vanishingly small. It doesn't/shouldn't take a visual to grasp how horrific the Sandy Hook shootings were.

[LeftinOH]

120. Photographs of the scene *after* the bodies were removed, but

before anything was cleaned up (if they exist) would be horrible enough. Show those, not the
dead children themselves. The sight of a blood-spattered first grade classroom ought to be enough to horrify anyone.

[WilliamPitt]

121. It's not about "shocking the public and politicians."

It's more than that.

I'm going to break Godwin's Law here...but photos of the Holocaust were not released to shock the public and politicians, so much as they were released as a means of saying THIS HAPPENED, AND MUST NOT EVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

Newtown happened, and must never happen again.

History is agony.

[ecstatic]

122. No. Those of us on the correct side of the issue are still heartbroken

and something like that would only cause more pain and trauma. Meanwhile, the clowns who raced to the gun shops to load up on assault weapons and ammo before the bodies were identified will never get it. Not to mention the untold number of wannabes who might become inspired enough to plan their own massacre.

[MNBrewer]

124. Yes

[truebluegreen]

126. Yes, with the parents' consent. n/t

[Gin]

127. Yes

With parents consent.

[DoBotherMe]

128. The photos should have been shown

during the congressional hearing so the legislators would have had to look. Dana ; )

[ladjf]

130. No. The reasons against out number the reasons for by a large margin. nt

[sir pball]

133. Are you brand-new to the internet, or just daft?

I'd give it 48 hours after release before the parents started to get the pictures sent back to them in the most grotesque and horrible ways, email, MMS, letters, postcards...and then come Christmas, or any of the poor kids' birthdays, well.

I've been on the internet far too long to not know exactly what would happen with these pictures. One word: 4chan.

[MAD Dave]

134. No Way!

[nolabear]

135. No. No. No. No. No. It's uncontrollable and can be used in ways you can't imagine.

Would I want my child's mutilated body on Facebook, where anyone can say anything? Would I want photoshopping by people who can do the unimaginable applied to those little ones? Turning those photos loose would have as much likelihood of fueling the gun nuts as stopping anything. NO.

[Bay Boy]

139. That would be my fear too.

Once they are out there is no making them private again.

[Dorian Gray]

136. No

Though I think every politician who has to vote in CT or Nationally, particularly on guns, should view those pictures.

I don't think that the general public needs to see them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

137. Absolutely

[11 Bravo]

138. No, but Wayne LaPierre should have them forcibly tattooed on the inside of his eyelids!

[booley]

141. yes as long as the parents were ok with it

I am thinking of the example of emmett till and how his mother insisted on keeping the coffin open so everyone could see.

We are emotional creatures. We really can't grok something unless we add some emotion to our understanding. Otherwise it remains a comfortable abstract. The gun lobby needs that fact to hide just how bad the situation is.

Stalin ironically said it bets.. one death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic.

However, this should be done with the parents consent. We can't justify traumatizing them further, even for this.