the children of Newtown who were killed are not merely political tools

[cali]

but they were loved by their parents, siblings and friends. Can you imagine the compounding shock and trauma that a child whose sibling was murdered would suffer seeing those images? Can you imagine the fear that a parent would endure that their child would view those pictures? And it would be very difficult to keep them sheltered.

We have no right to demand that these people who have already suffered such grievous loss and pain, show the entire world the images of the bullet shredded bodies of their children and siblings.

Oh, and it's naive to think that it would initiate a sea change and miraculously make strict gun control the law of the land.

[Tx4obama]

1. I believe that a couple of the children killed did not have siblings.

Not all parents would have to come forward with photos. But the ones that did would be helping America understand what those bullets did.

---

Emmet Till's mother in the 1950s had courage.

-snip-

The A. A. Rayner Funeral Home in Chicago received Till's body, and upon arrival, Bradley insisted on viewing it to make a positive identification, later stating that the stench from it was noticeable two blocks away. She decided to have an open casket funeral, saying "There was just no way I could describe what was in that box. No way. And I just wanted the world to see." Tens of thousands of people lined the street outside the mortuary to view Till's body, and days later thousands more attended his funeral at Roberts Temple Church of God in Christ.

Photographs of his mutilated corpse circulated around the country

, notably appearing in Jet magazine and The Chicago Defender, both black publications, and drew intense public reaction. According to The Nation and Newsweek, Chicago's black community was "aroused as it has not been over any similar act in recent history". Till was buried September 6 in Burr Oak Cemetery in Alsip, Illinois.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmet_Till

p.s. I will not post a link to the Till photos, but they are on available to see on the internet.

[enough]

2. An interesting historical perspective. (nt)

[cali]

3. If individual parents choose to release images ONLY of their dead child

that's one thing, but are you seriously saying that the parents who don't want this lack courage?

[Tx4obama]

4. I have not heard anyone say they want to 'force' the parents to release photos...

If they were to do it on their own I would support their decision.

---

Even Michael Moore was not asking for them to be released, he was talking about 'leaks'

-snip-

“I believe someone in Newtown, Connecticut – a grieving parent, an upset law enforcement officer, a citizen who has seen enough of this carnage in our country – somebody, someday soon, is going to leak the crime scene photos of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre,” he wrote in a blog post titled “America, You Must Not Look Away (How to Finish Off the NRA)“.

“And when the American people see what bullets from an assault rifle fired at close range do to a little child’s body, that’s the day the jig will be up for the NRA,” he continued. “It will be the day the debate on gun control will come to an end. There will be nothing left to argue over. It will just be over. And every sane American will demand action.”

-snip-

http://www.mediaite.com/online/michael-moore-calls-for-release-of-sandy-hook-dead-body-pictures-to-finish-off-the-nra/

[cali]

6. a crime scene photo release by anyone would be a grotesque violation

without the consent of all the parents and that would sure as shit be forcing the release against the will of some of the parents.

[AndyA]

5. Stricter gun control

Oh, and it's naive to think that it would initiate a sea change and miraculously make strict gun control the law of the land.

Actually, Rachel Maddow just discussed this on her show. Showing graphic images on the news from Vietnam increased public pressure to reform gun laws back in the sixties.

So, not naive at all. Very possible.

[Crepuscular]

8. So

So would you advocate showing horrific pictures of children killed and mutilated due to other causes?

I came across an absolutely horrifying picture on the internet of a young child that had been viciously mauled, mutilated and killed by a bull mastiff. Lot's of blood and gore. There are large numbers of people who think certain breeds of dogs should be banned, in fact some municipalities have enacted such bans, do you think it would be appropriate for the media to publish pictures such as the one I described, to help dangerous dog control advocates advance their agenda? Honest question. I didn't post the pic in question out of common decency but if you use Google images it's pretty easy to find, along with a score of other appalling photos of dog mauling victims.

Just curious if the value of showing victim photos in the media is universal or is it restricted to only children that are killed with guns?

[AndyA]

9. I didn't say I advocated anything, that is your conclusion

I simply pointed out that images of this nature have been shown before, and they were effective at bringing about change in gun laws. If someone wants to see gruesome photos, they are available. Car accidents, animal maulings, gun shot victims, you name it--it's out there.

Bushco made it illegal for the media to show the coffins of dead soldiers returning home, so perhaps the visual images don't necessarily need to be of a horrific nature to be effective.

It's difficult to compare dogs to guns. Dogs provide love, companionship, and service, and if they're lucky, become beloved members of the family, whereas guns only kill. Dogs aren't designed to maul people, guns are. Two very different things.

I think ultimately it should be up to the parents of the children to determine if photos are released. Perhaps one of them will have a Jackie Kennedy "let them see what they've done" moment. I do believe most people have no idea the kind of damage done to a human body by weapons like the one used in Newtown, and would question why such a weapon was necessary to anyone outside of the military.

[maxsolomon]

7. No one thinks that it would do what you suggest.

No one is that naive.

But it is not unreasonable to want SOME change in firearm regulations to come out of such a horrific event - to see it make some positive change. And further, to speculate on just what it would take to turn the tide towards sanity.

I'm such a cynic on this topic that I think you could execute toddlers on TV and it wouldn't be sufficient.