I'm not strongly into the 'false flag' theory to explain all and every violent event that occurs. I think many on our side are too quick to apply the FF label in the absence of convincing evidence. However it's always correct to ask cui bono? (who benefits?) from such massacres. You don't need to be of a conspiratorial mind-set to be highly sceptical of the explosive growth of such incidents in recent times. Because every such incident elicits a barrage of outraged demands for gun-ownership "reform". Every time. This despite overwhelming evidence that such "reform" would prove worthless in terms of countering such attacks.****
Now the manipulators have successfully seized on the latest massacres to win over Trump and Congressional Republicans, hitherto the only meaningful defenders of the Second Amendment in the political arena. 'We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process," Trump said. "That is why I have called for red-flag laws, also known as extreme-risk protection orders." Well done Donald, you've just lost about half his base while gaining not a single Dem convert. Not one. "Congressional Republicans, under pressure to respond to this weekend's massacres, appear to be coalescing around legislation to help law enforcement to take guns from those who pose an imminent danger - a measure that, if signed into law, would be the most significant gun safety legislation enacted in 20 years."
It would indeed be the most significant gun safety legislation enacted in 20 years. Because it would provide a mechanism to progressively chip away at gun ownership rights the same way so-called hate speech laws are used to progressively smother almost everything not consistent with The Narrative. Countries like Britain and Sweden, historically bastions of free speech and discourse, have been transformed into USSR-lite. And increasingly less lite as time goes on. Had Western peoples been aware of the eventual impact of seemingly innocent initial restrictions on "hate" - I mean, how could you not oppose hate? - The legislation would have been overwhelmingly rejected. But bit by bit the range and depth of what qualified as "hate" was extended until we are where we are today. Unless White Americans (because - be in no doubt - they're the target) act now gun rights, like free speech, will go the way of the dodo.
Bad guys can always acquire a gun. Would-be murderers or terrorists can always get hold a gun or if not a weapon equally lethal. This applies especially in the USA where existing circumstances (hundreds of millions of guns in existence and Latin America lying across a porous border) render it impossible to disarm gang-bangers or terrorists.
Bad guys will ignore gun-free zone warnings. In the name of Jesus it should not be necessary to point this out but many otherwise normal people profess to think that sticking up a sign will stop would-be mass murderers. It'd be comical were not lives as stake.
The ownership/murder ratio does not hold up. The ratio of gun ownership does not correlate at all with the ratio of murders. For instance Norway, Canada and Switzerland lag only slightly behind the USA in the gun ownership ratio but the gun death ratio (especially in Norway and Switzerland) is but a fraction of America's. Same within the USA, States and cities with rigid gun control laws have the highest ratios of gun crime.
The 80/20 rule applies: Analysis of race-delineated gun deaths shows that approximately 80% of White killers kill themselves while the ratio is reversed for black killers.
Gun deaths are actually declining: Despite the opportunistic hysteria that accompanies every mass killing in the USA the number of gun deaths there has actually declined since the nineties. (Last year 12 per 100,000, 15 for most of the nineties...a 20% decline).
Legally-owned gun-holders can deter or foil attacks. Think of the football coach who valiantly threw himself in front of his students when Cruz started firing. What if he had had a powerful gun? We know what would have happened. Cruz would have been offed and the death toll drastically reduced. Note that American politicians strangely enough have no problem with guns when its their own asses being protected. The takeaway: Guns don't murder, the people who use them do.
The nigger in the woodpile: An appropriate metaphor here because the mystery ingredient underpinning all of the anomalies above is race. As FBI statistics show, year after year, blacks murder at about six times the rate of Whites, Hispanics three to four times the White rate. If you normalise the figures, i.e. isolate the ratio of gun murders committed by Whites, you'll see that America is little different from most European countries. at 21:17