No one can deny that gun violence in this country is a serious problem. There are those who advocate for stricter gun control legislation and there are those that oppose any such measures. A position of resistance is almost always a controversial – and by definition adversarial – position to keep.. Instead, it needs to be couched, “in favor of this” not, “opposed to that”
To measure the control of gun violence, the must measure the effectiveness of gun controls that are current in those areas which visit the highest rates.
The cities in the usa that are among those with the most rigorous gun control laws include Washington, DC.. Detroit, Chicago and New Orleans. These cities have such tight gun control laws that it is almost impossible for the ordinary citizen to own a gun. As a consequence, the should expect to find that in these cities where virtually no firearms are permitted that the levels of gun violence are basically nil. But that isn’t false.
In reality, just the contrary is true. Washington, DC.. Detroit, Chicago and New Orleans are among those municipalities in the United States where firearm violence is the greatest.. To further evaluate this statistic, we must also look at those places where gun control laws are the most lax and lenient, because if firearms are the problem, then clearly, these places will have the greatest rates of gun violence in the state. But, they tend not to.
Again, the reverse is true. Wyoming and Arizona are among those states having the most lax and lenient gun control laws. Hence, if the ownership or possession of firearms were the difficulty, these states needs to be experiencing absolutely unparalleled rates of gun violence. Nevertheless they don’t. That which we find in these two states is that firearm violence is among the best in the country.
From this quick survey, we can post a preliminary speculation :
If in those places where gun laws are basically nonexistent there’s almost no or very little firearm violence, and in those areas where it’s essentially prohibited to be in possession of a firearm, the gun violence is the greatest, then it becomes self-evident the possession of firearms isn’t the reason behind firearm violence. From this we could additionally observe that there might also be higher, even extreme, amounts of firearm violence and a positive correlation between firearm laws that are exceedingly restrictive.
To further evaluate our hypothesis, we’re able to go state-by-state to assess which have lenient and which have to what degree and stricter gun control laws. But rather than expending time and effort to research this place, we may be able to consider that, if our premise is correct that the ownership of guns really isn’t the difficulty, that our results on a state-by-state basis may reveal little, if any valuable data having the most probable consequence being that of a train wreck in the statistical data. We may have to return and run this research, but at the present time, we are able to safely set it aside and go forward.
Consequently, with all the national media voicing such strident broadcasts in favor of commanding the possession of firearms, when we’ve already reasoned that gun possession isn’t the issue, we then must ask, who would take advantage of gun control laws?
The spate of mass shootings throughout the Obama age looks orchestrated. It looks designed specifically in order to achieve a certain result; gun control. But before we can post this second hypothesis that is inflammatory and conspiratorial, we should test the hypothesis contrary to the available evidence remembering that this second theory could possibly be in error.
First, we have to establish the strategic framework in which to structure our research. This strategic framework provides motivation. The reason seems clear – to remove guns from the people’s hands. Next, to be able to determine whether these atrocious events are being staged, directed, planned and orchestrated, we have to additionally structure a framework that is tactical. Whereas our strategic framework represents thought – as in motivation, our tactical framework signifies physical real-world evidence that could be quantified and assessed.
In 1986, I wrote a white paper titled “Deep Blue: Covert, Subliminal Warfare” which described a brand new kind of warfare. In this paper I sketch out the “human time bomb” an individual who’s preprogrammed to “go off” at a certain time. I also detail how horrific events, arbitrary but connected in nature, could be traced back to some common source. I specify that there must be at least three common components between any two occasions for all those occasions to be related with a common source.
In the case of mass shootings, we will almost certainly find that each shot was a loner, or at the most had only one additional accomplice, that they likely spent much of their time and that they had very few if any close friends. Because that is a mass shooter’s typical psychological profile, it may not be a valid datum point. But we shall retain it until we can dismiss it or verify its authenticity as a point of datum.
Next we need to identify and evaluate at least two and preferably three additional datum points in order to draw a connection back to a common source.
We must answer these questions:
1. Were each of the shooters prescribed a drug in common such as Prozac?
2. Was there a facility that is common within 20 to 50 miles, maybe a national facility
3. Was there a surprising increase in signal noise in the days preceding the event?
In the event and the World Trade Center strikes on 9/11, I discovered a significant increase in signal noise just prior to each occasion but I was unable – at that time – to associate the signal noise to the occasion which followed.
This signal sound, as we are calling it, would be recognized as a surprising upsurge in communications traffic. However, because loners there should be no upsurge in communications are being looked at by us – there are not any cells. However there ought to be an increase in ” sound, ” actions and events of a like type by a common body.
In the case of 9/11 as well as in the case of the Boston Marathon Bombing, we observe that there was a sudden increase in national and local activity prior to the occasion and the prepositioning of federal and local assets specially trained and organized to attend to the form of catastrophe that followed.
This degree of activity by state and federal authorities could be absent but some action and a few kind of activity needs to be present if these events are being orchestrated by a third party. We are unable to recognize any increase in noise, not that it does not exist, necessarily, but it might be that such events are being underreported from the media or that we are not able to differentiate it from the background noise.
4. That is just a speculation, but there can also be a telegraph, a foreshadowing of the event issued before each incident several months to the overall public.
In the 9/11 catastrophe, we notice that in May of 2001, a New Delhi, India newspaper article posited that, in light of recent changes in oil rights, petroleum distribution and petroleum contracts, the United States would need to find a rationale to intervene militarily in Iraq.
An American think tank, in crafting a white paper regarding the New American Century pinned down the only way to get the American people behind a war against Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Iran would be to create another “Pearl Harbor” type assault against the American people on American land.
In August of the same year, William Cooper, during his net radio broadcast stated that the United States government was planning an attack against American citizens on US.. land someplace along the Eastern seaboard by using hijacked commercial jetliners and framing the assault on Osama Bin Laden. William Cooper was killed in a shootout in November of 2001 by Arizona sheriff’s deputies who claimed that William Cooper had opened fire on them.
Our common source entity frequently foreshadows its intent and creates sound. It’s our duty correctly compute this noise and to identify and evaluate these foreshadows. Exclusively by recognizing the truth of those activities can we develop the hope of our independence from those who would seek to control us and bringing them to light, destroy our supports and steal our wealth.
The issue with gun violence isn’t firearms, the cause of firearm violence is morals, the thoughts and intention of those who incite violence using firearms to improve their very own political agenda.