What can and can't be done to prevent massacres

Now that the debate has settled down, let's have a realistic look at what can and can't be done to prevent both school and all other kinds of massacres (outside of war, that's a different topic). In light of Florida, we have two distinct public models on how to archive this: The conservatives who want more weapons, armed teachers or security personal at in this case schools, and the progressives who want to ban if possible all firearms out of the hands of the police. The following blog will shed light on where both ways of though will lead and which third path we should take. Because, and both progressives and conservatives will probably hate me for this: Both approaches could not have reliably prevented shootings like Florida and others.

[Picture link: here]

What can we do to prevent massacres?

Would gun bans have worked?

Let's start with gun bans. The more moderate elements in the progressives call for "just" the rifles to be banned or more strict background checks, while others are past that point and want all guns banned no quarter given. So let's ask ourselves: Would the shooter or as some students claim, the shooters, have been able to get guns under absolute public disarmament? The answer is yes. Because as it turns out, criminals have it somewhat in their name to commit crimes and not to follow public law and order. Even if tomorrow the police or military would come into all houses and confiscate all weapons, assuming the people would just go along with it, over night there would be a black market for guns. All sorts of shady people would come together and build weapons because now that people can't get them from the public market, they will pay ten times the normal price for illegal arms. In no market other than big pharma that I know of the profit margin is so high. Supply is low, demand is high, but those who want to get weapons will be able to do so. It will, granted, be harder. But it's only a matter how far people will go, and in the case of total mental patients that shooters are, they will go anywhere.

But even if shooters would have been unable to secure guns, this merely changes the weapon, not the intention they have or the motives. They could do what ISIS does: Run over people with a truck. Or wait until it's almost new year and build an IED (improvised explosive device) out of materials they can just buy. All it takes is a sufficiently large amount of explosive material and that would be it. In a zone where everybody is unarmed, assuming the criminal is physically superior, they could also just get a knife and stab their victims. Guns and rifles are simply the tool best suited for the job these people have access to. Even if you where to ban EVERYTHING people can hurt each other with, that would also have to include the hands and feet themselves, because even naked with no tools, people can still kill each other. It would be extremely difficult to kill 17 victims this way, but the students are shouting "not one more", not "next time only 16" or 10, or 5.

All that can be archived with gun bans will be a shift in methods. So what would the progressive left do? I can tell you exactly. For this one only needs to realize that the "RIPs" as I called them now almost a year ago are only pawns of the controller-elites that use them quite literally as cannon fodder. And the agenda of the controller-elites is clear as day: People who own guns can defend themselves and make it for criminals more dangerous to do their criminal activities. They do not need to rely on the state to make the streets secure, the threat to criminals that everyone on the street could be armed alone does a lot of the job. That's bad for the controller-elites, as they seek to use crime to bully the people into asking them to get their rights taken and a police state set up. The logical conclusion is to take away, bit by bit, every piece of order and security while blaming it in a divide-and-conquer onto different groups.

Think of it this way, as an example of how this can be done with a difference in skin color: The black people think white people are shooting them, the white people think black people are shooting them, and above them the controller-elites say to the black people "Hey, if you don't want the whites to shoot you, let us take all guns, put police everywhere and take some rights... It's not nice, but hey, these people kill you all the time. Let us help you." while going to the white people and doing the exact same deception, just with a different skin color. Only that they are trying to do it with liberal and conservative. They have managed to make the political left so aggressive that they go out in "Anti"Fa riots hurting anyone who isn't in the black bloc and looting all that they can see. Naturally the conservatives want to defend themselves and the more extreme elements commit crime, and that's it: Two sides that use violence on each other. So now turn in your guns so we can make it more secure for you. Don't mind the fact that we've created the conflict or planned this from the start. Just be a good citizen and comply.

Would armed teachers or on-site police have helped?

After looking at the political left, now to do the same with the right. So let's ask the question: Would armed teachers or on-site police have prevented the shooting? And once more, the answer is no. Shooters in general could barely care less about what happens after it. Not rarely they shoot themselves when SWAT teams close in on them. They are on a suicide mission. So what would have happened? The criminals when attacking civilians in a zone where only a few are armed would most likely wait for a large amount of unarmed people to gather. Or in the case of armed teachers, they would have simply gone into a room and shot the teacher first, eliminating the threat, then going on to attack the students. Even if all of them were armed, an IED could easily have taken out a lot of people regardless if they were carrying weapons or not. So even in this all I can say is that guns fail to prevent shootings entirely. It would most certainly end with less dead, as sooner or later someone with a gun would take out the shooter(s) in these situations, but in the end it would again amount to "only" less dead and wounded, but no prevention.

The difference is that when people are armed, criminals that don't plan on dying anytime soon or even truly hurting others, those that simply want the wallet and leave, would have to take serious risks attacking civilians. Even if they can control the single individual, it's always possible someone with a gun comes around the corner, which puts the lives of all three or more in danger. In a similar way, all overt crime is suppressed without anyone firing a single shot. That doesn't mean that it disappears completely or that crime itself is a thing of the past, but it does help. That aside, of cause people will short-circuit in situations of stress and kill others even though in their normal state they would never do it. But in a society where most people are reasonable, this can be reduced to a level where it is worth preventing other crimes.

So what now?

Both increasing and decreasing the amount of guns would not have prevented the Florida shooting, or any other shooting where the criminal(s) are on a suicide mission from the start. Both methods only lead to a shift in the methods and tools used to kill others. Even when thinking both paths to their ultimate end (in the case of gun control preventing the mere ability of humans to harm each other, resulting in a world where everyone sits home alone in a straitjacket in total isolation because, after all, to the SJWs words are violence too or in the case of arming oneself to the teeth everyone having nuclear weapons at their disposal) things only get worse down the road. Then how about this: Instead of trying to stop the gun, how about we stop the gunner before he or she even starts to go down this path.

There are multiple steps that can be taken to reduce the amount of people who are mentally unstable enough to pick up whatever weapon they choose and kill as many as they can. Most of it has to do with what people long ago used to call "common sense". Common sense was not hurting each other unless to prevent someone from hurting someone else or oneself. If we increase the amount of responsible people who won't hurt others, we could both have bigger weapons and fewer deaths. So let's take a look at why public sanity has been reduced to the point where more mental patients wake up and want to kill others.

A great deal of it comes from the controller-elites. They have successfully divided the people of not just the US, but all over the western world into left-wing and right-wing. You can read more about this here. What this has done is increased the tension between people who would otherwise simply not care about each other. This leads to more hate among them and naturally increases the amount of people who are mentally disturbed enough to go hurt or kill others. But what else? For a long time now, what people call the "atomic family" as in an individable group of people related both by blood and kinship that gives people a solid place to stand in society as they grow up. Instead there is the entire LBTQUIQ"§FJ)WA§F+++ or whatever the new abbreviation is has declared war on normal heterosexual activity, often without the people who actually are homo- or bisexual as all they want is simply to be left alone. Instead, the progressive left has gotten addicted to being outraged on someone else's behalf. But wait, there's more: Most of the school shooters are later found to be on some sort of drug treatment for mental disorders, not rarely with drugs that are worse than the sickness (because the more sick there are, the more drugs can be sold to them), not rarely with multiple drugs that potentially interact with each other in the human body and turn the chemical balance that a normally functioning brain needs to ruin, especially in the earlier stages of growing up, where a lot of important brain structures change.

Is it possible that a generation under no less than total assault on normal, common sense human behavior have a larger percentage of total mental patients that go in and kill as many as they can? For anyone without common sense, the answer is no. If people are plagued by physical, sociological, psychological and a number of other issues, they turn out to be abnormal. If people grow up in a war, their natural barrier towards actually killing someone is lower than that of others who grew up during peace.

So what do I want? How can we prevent shootings from happening? The answer still is: We can't. Even if society is peaceful and intact, even if people are healthy both in their body and mind, there will always be those who for any number of coincidences or predispositions end up like this. But what we can do is this;

1.) Improve and actually enforce background checks. Get the FBI to work on that instead of the Trump-Russia illusion.

2.) Stop the controller-elites from further tearing down common sense and decency.

3.) Stop big pharma from throwing out medical drugs like candy for every little mental abnormality a child has with substances that lead to many more, worse effects.

Simply embracing these 3 steps would drastically reduce the amount of shootings we see, be it at schools, airports or anywhere else. This doesn't prevent it 100%, but nothing short of all people either being dead already or unable to interact with each other at all can.