Can we expect more mass shootings in very near future?

From the Aurora shooting I believed that the government is using Problem Reaction Solution to get their solution in this case.
It is possible that mass shoutings were false flags to induce reaction in public. So the public reacts by demanding tighter gun control and "they" (military industrial complex and globalists) got their "Solution" - Disarmament of US Civilians.
So what do You think? Current situation obviously doesn't bring enough reaction from the public in order for them to push some serious disarmament of US civilians. I want to hear you thoughts on whether there will be more mass shootings or not, and if there is interest wich is pushing (staging) directly / indirectly these attrocities.

Also I belive that if disarmament begins, authorities will face noncooperation and resistance from gun owners - a potential trigger for Marshall Law.

P.S: Excuse my bad English

reply to post by Fichorka

There are 20-30 gun related homicides in the U.S. every single day. 7 days a week. 365 days a year. For as many years back as you reasonably want to go and stay in the same 'era'.

They don't need more mass shootings. They have the media already doing what they need. The media is making the 20-30 shootings that happened every day ANYWAY appear like a growing crime wave sure to kill us all eventually if something isn't done right.....this.....second, and it's only growing worse and more bloody each day that goes by.

As long as the media tows the company line here and creates the impression that our very lives depend on gun control measures on an emergency 'can't stop to think! No time!' basis? They'll get what they want without another Aurora or Newtown or Amish School House or Beslan School Massacre.

Who needs a few BIG events if the media will just make the constant flow of little ones seem so much worse than the years of it ever have been before.

Looking at the mass shooting history there's bound to be one soon. Of course it will be called a false flag attack though, like every one is.

I see no reason to think they would cease. Why would they? Has humanity suddenly become 'intelligent' enough to not kill each other?

If people think that they US govt. is going to use mass shootings to take your guns, they're wrong. They won't take your guns using such means, implemented or by chance. "Oh but they're trying to take my guns, they orchestrated this!" - what time in reality would it take a mass shooting NOT to make so much publicity?

When would a mass shooting NOT garner talk about gun control?

But to assume that they did it to take guns, is illogical, ill thought out scaremongering.

If they want your guns, they will simply make it so.

Which do you think works best, for a government with the presumed power to enact such schemes?

A: Politician Pete says "You have too many guns. It's legislated now that you must register on a gun owners list and only have so and so type of gun."

or

B: "Massacre in a school. Politicians call for gun control."

a slips on by with people screaming about it being wrong. But it does. No angle of obstruction apart from s few nut jobs.

b halts mid swing s they have so many accusations and conspiracies to deal with. Joe Teatowell stands up and believes Bob Conspiracy. The noise outweighs the intent and it's lost in the echo of alex jones talkback.

Either way, if they want your guns, they take them. They don't need a shooting to do it.

But that doesn't tickle the conspiracy thinker. They need that tickle.

Can we expect more mass shootings in very near future?

Is the Pope catholic?

Does Dolly Parton sleep on her back?

Do chickens cross the road to get to the other side?

if these things can do it ,

maybe .gov had harnesses the power

the parasite makes its host climb a tree and wave its butt in the air in order to catch the eye of a bird. The bird then nabs the ant, allowing the parasite to escape through the ant's abdomen and spread to other potential hosts.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Warning :GROSS

www.youtube.com...

I just wonder what will be after the "assault weapons" ban?

What will the next mass shooter use?

Full auto?

I mean, lets figure, they already are using illegally obtained guns anyway, why not go for the gusto, right?

What happens if they use glocks?

Are they going to just ban every gun type, one at a time, based on "outrage"?

It still won't stop them, because you just can't get it through their thick skulls, it isn't the legal gun owners you have to worry about.

yep ... unfortunately, it's the shock value they need to move on their desired legislation.
Vermont, New Jersey and Georgia are prime targets ... but, chances are better that something will happen in Utah, first.

Originally posted by Honor93
yep ... unfortunately, it's the shock value they need to move on their desired legislation.
Vermont, New Jersey and Georgia are prime targets ... but, chances are better that something will happen in Utah, first.

Georgia would be a dumb place to go. We had over a %60 increase in gun sales in December alone.

Georgia is a lot like Texas in that regard. Not wise to think about it here.

Here is something I just posted, in fact.

Dec 16, 2012

politicalvelcraft.org...

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia‘s ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.


The city’s population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn’t. The fact is I can’t remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city’s crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn’t force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don’t have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

Places where it is mandatory for the head of house to own a gun? Mmm bad choice.

You can also wager in most crowds, probably close to half are probably conceal carry.

reply to post by Libertygal

in case you are not paying attention, all of the areas i mentioned except NJ are heavily armed and increasing by the day.

it would be extremely advantageous if a false flag were initiated in one of those regions. (GA included)
the only reason i left FL out is because Martin/Zimmerman is still simmering in some areas.

regardless the ownership rules, each of those areas STILL have gun-free zones, don't they ?
please, take a moment to see the bigger picture and by all means, stay alert (especially in GA) ... Kennesaw is only so big.

reply to post by Fichorka


I suspect that the next one will involve more than a single "shooter" and some heavy duty explosives will be used. They will claim that the bad guys are becoming organized. Of course, with help from the alphabet agencies, they will get everything they need before they are apprehended. Then the blame will be placed upon some group that has gone terrorist, with ties to (put organization of choice here).

You can expect copycats, that will either attempt it, or plan to raise the level of carnage and death to a new level, mainly because of the intense media coverage, people who see themselves as being the subject of massive interest and can be made famous in that media though committing such an atrocious act that everyone will know their name, and will ultimately be permanently written into history.

Maybe suicidal, maybe insane, maybe considered it, but has found motivation to actually do it, and/or die trying.

Since they are happening world wide, yes. I too feel that their is an SSRI involvement here. Many of the last murderers had NO criminal record, but WERE on Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors.
Strange, but if it were alcohol or tobacco (that was implicated in this chaos), those manufacturers would already have multimillion dollar class actions filed against them.

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Can we expect more mass shootings in very near future?

Is the Pope catholic?

Does Dolly Parton sleep on her back?

Do chickens cross the road to get to the other side?

Oh schmit that's funny!