GRAPHIC: Children's bullet wounds.

[Ptah]

We don't need to see the images.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. Yes, we do.

Otherwise it's just words. Images matter.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Yes. Images matter--images create and focus the outrage.

[SunSeeker]

4. Maybe we don't, but Republicans do. nt

[ms liberty]

5. We don't, but the idiots who think their guns are more important than our kids obviously do. n/t

[blueinredohio]

6. Yes, while congress is debating this

democrats need to put up the graphic images for republicans to have to look at.

[Walleye]

7. The one image we've seen is the damage done by Kyle Rittenhouse

On the arm of the guy who survived his shooting. It wasn’t a bullet wound with a bandanna tied around it like in gunsmoke, his arm was completely destroyed you could see the bone. They definitely should be forced to see these pictures. If they are on trial most state courts now permit cameras. Show the fucking evidence

[Vinca]

8. I'm afraid I disagree. As horrible as it is, mass shootings have been sterilized and they all seem

to end up being a "mental health" issue with no changes in access to these deadly weapons. People need to see the consequences. I imagine some families would give their consent to the images being shown if it might stop the next 10 year old from being blown apart.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

9. Correct. We do not. This is simply the flip side of the tactic of anti-abortion activists who

parade photos of fetal remains around. It's such a weird and ghoulish desire.

[Victor_c3]

10. The most disturbing thing I ever dealt with was a child that had been shot

I found him after a firefight I was a part of in Iraq, 2004 and I was the first person to begin to administer first aid.

I could recount the story in vivid detail, but we’re all in agreement on this forum that military grade weapons don’t belong in a peaceful society.

I’m relieved such images aren’t a part of this thread.

[Bettie]

12. We may not need to

but a lot of gun humpers need to.

It's ugly, but shooting children to death is ugly and we shouldn't sanitize it or make it 'pleasant' for them, by only showing them images of parents grieving. They mock those grieving parents and siblings, friends, they mock them.

Maybe them seeing the actual damage might shut their pie holes for five minutes.

[Liberal In Texas]

13. Yes. I'm afraid it's time to escalate the message.

The only way to get enough public pressure to get war weapons illegal to own by civilians is to get the public outraged at what they do.

[Shellback Squid]

14. we do and we should

[Ilsa]

15. I think a lot of people do need to see them, but many don't,

and that includes you and me.

[sir pball]

16. Many if not must gunners have already seen what rifle fire does to bodies.

Admittedly not human bodies, but a deer torso is a surprisingly good human analog - it doesn't take a lot of imagination to superimpose the...gory, and that's all I'll say, damage a 308 through the heart does to a whitetail onto a human.

The majority of folx who haven't seen bullet damage are most likely already on board with a significant percentage of gun control proposals; I don't see as many hearts and minds being changed by splattering gore across the papers as you think would be affected. As has been pointed out, it doesn't work for abortion so I wouldn't expect it to work for us.

[sanatanadharma]

17. Please keep in mind the poularity of TV CSI, police and crime show gore

Although such TV show interest is not new, the make-up/ props, producers, people are constantly improving their ability to send ever more realistic blood, gore, burned, torn, ripped, mutilated bodies pictures to the TV's of American homes.

Apparently there exists a desire among TV viewers to see such imagery. I think blood lust is born from eating sentient animals.

I see such morality-mangling entertainment when channel flipping but will not watch. I am a vegetarian.

[panader0]

18. The fact that DNA samples had to be drawn from the parents to ID the kids is enough to know

that the wounds were horrific.

[MrsCoffee]

19. The Terror of War photographer disagrees.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/02/nick-ut-vietnam-war-photo-kim-phuc/

Opinion A single photo can change the world. I know, because I took one that did.
By Nick Ut
June 2, 2022 at 8:10 a.m. EDT

I am proud of my photo and the emotions and conversations it created around the world. Truth continues to be necessary. If a single photo can make a difference, maybe even help end a war, then the work that we do is as vital now as it has ever been.

https://www.insider.com/vietnam-war-napalm-girl-photo-50-years-later-photographer-and-subject-speak

The impact and resonance of the photo was felt for decades. "Vietnam War veterans said to me, 'I came home early because of your picture. I didn't want to die in Vietnam,'" Ut recalled of being approached in public over the years.

~~~~~~

The image captures how children suffer in warfare, and also the horrifying effects of napalm, a flammable jelly-like substance developed by a US chemist that when ignited burns through skin and tissue, inflicting lifelong disfigurement and suffering on those it does not kill. The US and South Vietnam used napalm extensively to set fire to North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters and their often concealed routes. But concerns about its terrifying effects persuaded the US to destroy its stocks and agree in 2009 not to use it and other incendiaries except against military targets.

[inthewind21]

20. Because it's better

to remain out of sight out of mind right? EVERYONE needs to see the images. The public needs a graphic un edited long hard look at what happens/has happened to innocent kids. Maybe THEN, and ONLY then can a minuscule amount of progress toward prevention can be made.