Politics (and Nefarious Reality?) of Mass Shootings in the U.S.

By Ann Kreilkamp | May 1, 2019

So let’s see now. How many mass shootings (usually by lone white males) in the past three days? Charlotte, NC., for one, somewhere in Ohio for another. Hard to keep track. Do we just shrug it off as to be expected in an increasingly fractured, polarized world?

Indeed, wikipedia lists 14 mass shootings in the U.S., first four months of 2019

It seems obvious to many people that gun control is the answer. That because we lack strict-enough gun laws, mass shootings in the U.S. outpace every other country.

But do they?

Check this out:

America doesn’t actually lead the world in mass shootings

Excerpt:

Of the 86 countries where we have identified mass public shootings, the US ranks 56th per capita in its rate of attacks and 61st in mass public shooting murder rate. Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia all have at least 45 percent higher rates of murder from mass public shootings than the United States.

When Lankford’s data is revised, the relationship between gun ownership rates and mass public shooters disappears.

How could that be? One possibility is that guns don’t just enable mass shooters; gun owners can also deter and prevent such shootings. Another is that culture — not gun ownership — is a bigger factor in shootings.

The media should be wary of any researchers who fail to let others look at their data. At least on this point, the intellectual base for liberal thunder about mass public shootings is wrong.

Yes. It’s not just “many people” who believe that gun control is the answer. In fact, it’s the liberal, progressive left, or, I should say, what the left has transmogrified into, over the past several decades. I used to be a leftist. Plus: my father, and every father I knew while growing up in the 50s, had at least one gun carefully stashed away, for protection, should the family ever need it. Gun possession was obvious. Also, it was no big deal. Part of the landscape. Like lawn mower, car, appliances.

I once married a man — now I would say he suffered from severe PTSD — who claimed to have been a “Black Beret” back in the pre-Vietnam era. He claimed that he had been an assassin, in both Asia and Central America, as well as a sharp shooter. I didn’t ask for details. All I knew is that he had liver disease and esophageal varicies, that I was (foolishly) trying to heal him, and that he was very well taken care of by the Veterans Administration, airlifted from one hospital to another, when necessary.

Luckily, that relationship only lasted one year. But something he said stuck with me ever since. “If guns are outlawed,” he said, “then only the government will have guns.” I was reminded again, of that remark, when watching the recent NRA rally for Trump, and his remarks about never ever letting go of the second amendment, the American citizen’s right to bear arms.

In other words, from another, more “right-wing” perspective, citizens must have guns to make sure government does not assume total control.

Since that time with Phil, I’ve been studying up on things like MK Ultra, and the CIA’s involvement in mind control, utilizing induced trauma to split the mind and create “alters” for various missions: assasination, sex work, couriers of various kinds, mass shooters, etc. For starters, you might want to read MK Ultra “presidential level” sex slave Kathy O’Brien’s Trance Formation of America. My research led me to think that most “mass shooters” are in fact manchurian candidates, puppets triggered into action on cue by invisible puppet masters in order to instill fear and chaos, leading, when sheeple get terrified enough, to gun control as the antidote.

But of course, it’s not just mind-control by psychiatric and torturous methods that’s available. The CIA and other nefarious puppeteers also have what is called “voice to skull” technology, and it can do the same thing, control a person’s behavior, this time via artificial telepathy.

I hope this is enough of an introduction for you to get up to speed enough to pay attention to James True’s research on “targeted individuals.”