Posted in: Opinion

Michael Moore And The Sandy Hook Victim Photos: Why The End Doesn’t Justify His Means

Michael Moore Sandy Hook victims

COMMENTARY | Controversial filmmaker Michael Moore has the second amendment and the NRA is his crosshairs, so to speak. His latest rhetorical bullet regards the photos of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims.

Moore believes that they should be released to the public, because being exposed the gruesome images is the only thing, if anything can, that will galvanize Americans into revising or repealing the second amendment and kissing the NRA goodbye for good.

In a lengthy op-ed for The Huffington Post titled “America, You Must Not Look Away (How to Finish Off the NRA),” Moore argues that Americans have “done nothing to revise or repeal” the constitutional right to bear arms, which “makes us responsible.”

” … and that is why we must look at the pictures of the 20 dead children laying (sic) with what’s left of their bodies on the classroom floor in Newtown, Connecticut,” he writes.

A very honest column written by Tommy Christopher for Mediaite titled “I Want Michael Moore To be Wrong About Newtown Crime Scene Photos,” the author concedes that Moore makes a good argument for the release of the Sandy Hook victim photos, but argues that “releasing the photos without their permission would badly undercut the desired effect.”

Christopher’s central disagreement with Moore regards the notion that such photos should be published by the media without permission from the parents of slain Newtown children. It’s a notion that Moore doesn’t clearly support in his argument, and he continually makes reference to his hope that “someday a Sandy Hook mother” will say “I just want the world to see.”

Unfortunately for Moore, he seems very unlikely to get that support. Many of the Newtown parents have spoken at committees and legislative hearings about gun control, the central issue in the debate over Newtown. They seem to be split on that issue. Many see the Newtown shooting as a clear call for greater gun control, while others don’t think that such legislation is the answer.

One thing almost all of the Newtown parents agree on is that they don’t want the Sandy Hook victim photos to ever go public.

“I would be very strongly against that,” Jeremy Richman, who lost his 6-year-old daughter Avielle, told Fox News of Moore’s proposal.

Another parent of a 6-year-old boy killed in the attack was outraged by the very idea.

“You can imagine what my reaction to that is,” the mother said, declining to comment further.

Indeed, the only Newtown parent who could even be arguably open to the idea is Veronique Pozner, the mother of Noah Pozner, the youngest victim in the Newtown tragedy.

Noah Pozner

In the wake of the Newtown shooting, Veronique described the state of her little boy’s remains as she struggled to bury him.

“He had thick, shiny hair, beautiful long eyelashes that rested on his cheeks. He looked like he was sleeping. But the reality of it was under the cloth he had covering his mouth there was no mouth left. His jaw was blown away. 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.”

Sandy Hook memorial

Haunting words indeed, but Veronique’s account was not political. It transcended politics. The philosophical musings of a mother who has inexplicably lost her child, the painful aching hollow of his absence, and the strength she found to lay him to rest.

Because of that, Veronique’s words and her actions should not be retroactively made to pull a plow for a left-wing agenda. Unless she wants them to.

This underscores the danger of Moore’s overzealous initiative. He can be upset over the Newtown victims and even a little bit self-righteous about it. But when you strip away all of the appeal to emotion, Moore is dubiously proposing that we use gruesome images of slain children, blown to bits by bullets from an assault rifle, as political props. Human shields to suit his radical personal vendetta.

Gun control

The problem with the gun control conversation? Everyone is lying about what they want.

Michael Moore (and even, to a degree, Senator Dianne Feinstein), want a world without guns. It’s a beautiful thought, and I think everyone, gun owner or otherwise, would agree that it would be lovely to live in a world without violence. Remember, most gun owners cite “personal protection” as their reason for owning a gun. Comedian (and noted liberal) Bill Maher is himself a gun owner, but disdainfully so. He owns a gun because he feels like he has to.

The right, including the NRA, really don’t know what to do with Sandy Hook. They hate that it happened. They’re human. They feel the loss. But they don’t want to admit any of it, because they fear they’ll risk losing a demographic or appearing “soft” on the issue of guns.

Only a precious few in the middle, or perhaps even the so-called “silent majority,” see what needs to be done even if they can’t find words to explain why.

Do we have a problem with violence, not with guns, but with violence, in America?

Yes.

Should we keep guns from finding their way into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill?

Yes.

Could that be accomplished through background checks, a basic requirement even for the “right” to pursue meaningful employment?

Yes.

Should responsible gun owners live without fear of punishment for a recreational right that they frequently exercise and enjoy?

Yes.

Do many current political proposals regarding the issue of gun control willingly or naively expect responsible gun owners to abide by laws designed and inspired by our most horrifying and monstrous criminals, and treat them rhetorically with equal measure?

Yes.

Should we see the Sandy Hook victim photos? Is that really what it will take to inspire action on gun control?

No.

A gun-free world can only really be accomplished after we find ourselves in a violence-free world. Because there’s nothing you can do about that, liberal activists like Michael Moore attack symptoms, not cause. You’ve heard it before. But think about it.

You need a triple bypass. Should we scrub up together and intervene surgically in order to save your life? Or should we perhaps consider removing your heart? What if it would prevent you from heart disease in the future?

Lastly, can we videotape it?

Articles And Offers From The Web

Comments

15 Responses to “Michael Moore And The Sandy Hook Victim Photos: Why The End Doesn’t Justify His Means”

  1. Chris Greenhough

    I think such a move could be beneficial, though as you say, only if the parents of those poor children consent. It should be they who have the final say, and certainly not Moore (though I'm not convinced he outright condones releasing the photos without permission).

    Would releasing the pictures be a political act? Yes. But then the legality of gun ownership is a political act. What would releasing the pictures achieve? Well, from where I'm standing, the act of killing and death itself has become deeply sanitized. Hey, looking at the remains of the slain is not so fun! But then perhaps a reality check is required. I think as a society we've become detached from the gravity of death and murder, the sheer ugliness of it.

    Obviously, this is all hypothetical, and I'm not advocating for a press that resembles Ogrish.com. It (rightly) comes down to what the Sandy Hook parents would want, though I believe releasing such images would help drive the bitter reality home.

    Just my 2¢. :)

  2. Mark Pinksten

    Chris. Make the world a better place. Please just kill yourself.

  3. Mark Pinksten

    Chris. Make the world a better place. Please kill yourself.

  4. Mark Pinksten

    You don't live here. Your opinion does not count or is really wanted. You can have opinion on guns and violence in the Shire and the rest of Middle Earth however.

  5. Charlie Steward

    Who in their right mind thinks that this would be beneficial. Gun laws only work against law abiding citizens, not criminals. People do not need to see what a gun does to a small child to know that this was a horrible thing. The school was a "Gun Free Zone", was it not, and this maniac got in just fine. Taking people's guns away does not solve the problem, making sure that those people know how and when to use them is the issue. It will not help anyone or any agenda to make these available. Just because you are rich, doesn't mean you are the sharpest tool in the shed. Michael Moore is a sick man for just suggesting this.

  6. Dave Kullik

    Instead of advocating the end of the 2nd amendment and a wellspring of support to destroy the NRA, maybe this is just the ammunition we need to silence Michael Moore. Mr. Moore has finally gone too far, showing exactly how callous and myopic his viewpoint is. Where is the national outcry for mental health reform? Why is there no mention that a human being planned this massacre of innocent children and unarmed adults for months? This obsession to blame inanimate objects for mass murders instead of the actual perpetrators is preposterous. There are thousands of ways one person can kill another or many besides a gun. Bare hands, machetes, knives, explosives…etc. But according to the far left guns are capable of planning and carrying out murder. Has anyone in law enforcement or the mental health community ever explored the notion that the war on hunting to prevent the demise of bambi and his brethren may have contributed to some of these tragedies? I attended hunter safety courses as a youth prior to being allowed to accompany my Father into the woods to hunt deer. This was a two month intensive safety program that my family reinforced with continued safety lessons before I ever fired a weapon at a target. The importance of never pointing a weapon loaded or unloaded at a fellow human being was repeated over and over. My hypothesis is that since the early 1970s more and more parents have been led to believe that food only comes from grocery stores and restaurants and pass this ideology onto their children. We are 3 generations into this way of thinking. I, on the other hand, was raised on a farm. I was taught you grow your own food, milk a cow, gather eggs, and hunt wildlife legally under the law bearing a firearm handed down to me from my grandmother (in our family everyone hunted). I learned how to accurately shoot a firearm at the age of nine. This is a skill that became useful during a 23 year career defending Americans and people all over the world in the US Military. Repeal of the 2nd amendment would mean only the government would be able to determine which people in law enforcement would be allowed to bear arms. Of course, the government has done such a fine job preventing illegal drugs from entering this country from overseas I'm certain they will have the same excellent record preventing firearms from falling into the hands of criminals. Meanwhile, I won't be allowed to train my own children how to safely handle a firearm, clean it, and practice shooting at targets. They would never be allowed to hunt with a firearm. Later on, as adults, they wouldn't be allowed to own a weapon to defend themselves if need be. Those children at the school in Connecticut didn't need an America without a 2nd amendment. Those children needed a certified armed guard or on duty police officer that would have held the deranged man at gunpoint until he could either be arrested or put down. I'd rather see children protected in any way possible, than have a psychotic's fragile self-image protected for months and years by not having them properly committed by a mental health professional. The most valuable treasure we have populates our schools on a daily basis. Don't we owe it to them to come together and find a solution? I remember there was talk for one week after the killings about possible solutions until some insipid celebrity news story dominated the airwaves again.

    We have become a nation of myopic, self-centered morons incapable of empathy for our fellow man. What is wrong with us as a nation? Am I the only one seeing the USA riding the express elevator towards the same decline evident in the last days of Rome? How many municipalities in the effort to save a few dollars have fired and laidoff valuable law enforcement professionals that might have prevented such violent crimes from happening? I ask each and every American: how valuable is a child's life? Whatever social background: urban, suburban, rural, race, creed, religion…they are all precious. Let's stop running around like idiots screaming to "ban guns at all costs"! Look at the real statistics: people who know how to properly use weapons safely do not commit these type of crimes (given the caveat that they aren't mentally unstable). The shootings in AZ, CO, CT the last 2 years were perpetrated by individuals who were not mentally stable by legal standards and who all sought out instant training only how to fire automatic weapons. Similar to the 9/11 terrorist pilots who didn't seek training on how to "land" a widebodied jet. These anti-social miscreants only wanted to learn how to load and aim the weapons at other human beings. They weren't interested in the safety features of a gun, the proper way of handling it, or securing it, and keeping ammunition locked up seperately. Not all NRA or 2nd amendment supporters believe you need an AR-15 or uzi to kill deer! How many times have there been incidents were young children picked up a pistol or rifle at home and shot themselves or a sibling due to: A. the parents conveniently left the gun sitting on a chair or sofa, B. had never received any training that a gun is not a toy? Now we have devices like Wii that come with toy guns that you can utilize to kill fictional people on video games. I won't let my children play those games that desensitize their minds to violence. I will however setup targets 50 yards away, sight a gun to the target, load the weapon with one round, and supervise them in firing one round down range safely. I'll make sure they know how to safety the weapon after they shoot that round, make sure they only point the muzzle at the target, and hand it back to me in the proper manner treating it as if it were still loaded. People on the far left would turn that scenario around saying I was raising future homegrown terrorists or possible mass murderers. I see it as training my children in a necessary skill they may or may not want to use in the future. At the very least they would know if they come across a gun to notify the closest adult and make sure nobody is hurt by carelessly flailing it around and/or pointing it at someone recklessly.

    I'm not saying every single child should attend hunter safety courses. But if I want my children to attend those courses, why is it that people who think differently than I feel they have the right to dictate how I choose to raise my kids? You never know, in 15 years my son or daughter might be that police officer that stops a mass murder!

  7. Heather Johnson

    (1) Facebook location indicates only where a person says he/she currently lives, not nationality. (2) People from other countries are allowed opinions on American politics. (3) I am American, and I am interested in his opinion.

  8. Heather Johnson

    Americans were outraged when images of the Vietnam war were shown because the brutality was made real. Perhaps Moore's suggestion is not so out there.

  9. Eileen Brennan

    While it would uncomfortable for the victims' families, if that is what it takes for these morons in Washington to wake up, so be it. They are ridiculous and unfair to the American people and disrespectful to Sandy Hook victims.