Dakota Beacon

Sadly, there has been another atrocious shooting – this time in a school in Texas.  Already everyone – conservatives included – is researching the background of the shooter.  What was his home life like?  Why did he want to kill people?  What did he have for breakfast?  These are not the questions we should be asking.

Perhaps it sounds “harsh”, but it doesn't really matter – and it shouldn't – what was in the mind of the criminal who killed these people in cold blood.  He was a mass murderer.  Whatever gave him the urge to do this was terrible.  But the bottom line is that we cannot learn anything to help us prevent another such incident by studying this killer.  That should be our aim when looking at a crime – how to prevent it the next time.  Unfortunately that isn't sensational enough for our mass media outlets.  When there is a horrible crime like this everyone jumps on for the ride, all looking for some “angle”, hoping to uncover some problem in the perpetrator's life that brought him to this.  In each case it is something different.  There might be a few common features.  A lot of these people have taken antidepressants, for example, but this isn't the kind of information the media wants to share.  This might actually provide useful insight.  But they don't want you to get that insight because they are mostly supported by the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture these antidepressants.  It's a bit like trying to get the truth about covid “vaccines”.  You won't get the truth from the people Big Pharma is paying to keep quiet. 

The problem with combing through the criminal's history and delving into the social problems in his life is that besides doing no good in preventing another such tragedy, it detracts from consideration of other more useful facts.  Every human being is different, despite the opinions of the de-pop gang such as Bill Gates or Anthony Fauci.  If we figure out what made one killer tick it would have little bearing on where or when the next mass murderer will strike.  By picking the brains of these criminals we serve the interests of the totalitarian state.  There is no way to know the hearts and minds of all potential criminals.  The more we try the more we will slip ever further into the grasp of the “social controllers” - those who would monitor our every word and thought.  This is a dangerous drift.  And it also is useless.  At least for the purpose of stopping such an event.  These incidents are used by the “deep state” to impose greater control over the rest of us.

On the other hand, there are some very good clues in such a crime as this which would be very useful in preventing the next one.  Without undue snooping into the individuals' pasts, we can guess that they all want instant fame.  They want the media to delve into their troubled history.  It is an ego trip they anticipate.  Clearly these people do need help – there is no denying that.  One would hope that they get this help without making controlled robots out of the rest of us who are normal.  But what can we do to prevent these people from acting on these thoughts?  Or perhaps even prevent them from formulating them in the first place? 

The answer lies not in the killers but in the sea in which they live.  It takes a combination of factors to allow this kind of atrocity to be carried out.  First, of course, the eager, perverted would-be killer who acts on his own set of triggers.  Second is access to the weapon.  Third would be the conditions which enable the killer to use his weapon.  While we really cannot stop the killer's urge without undue restriction on the rest of the people – we can't impose restraint in advance of a crime, and we should not restrict the possession of weapons among the normal people, we can certainly change the “sea” in which all of this happens.  We can figure out what in the venue of the shooting could be changed.  By looking for solutions in this area we avoid making prisoners out of all of society.

We can arm teachers.  We should offer training and a stipend of extra pay to teachers willing to take the training and be armed in the classroom and hallways of our schools.  No one should be forced to be armed – we have a long-standing exemption from bearing or using arms in our culture if one is not willing.  But we should seek to hire those who are willing to protect the kids in their classrooms from such events as the Texas shooting.  It is not particularly helpful to hire armed guards (we saw how that worked out in Parkland, Florida a few years ago).  For one thing, if a person wants to commit this kind of crime he is aware of who these people are and where they are and would take them out first.  We should further train teachers in proper response to a shooting event.  That would be NOT to cluster together in some corner of some locked room and wait to be shot.  This has happened repeatedly.  The best thing would be for kids to scatter – in other words run like hell for home.  Those are far better odds.  If every kid was sent running home in different directions, it would be almost impossible to stage a mass killing. In the most recent mass shooting incident - in Uvalde, Texas - we have a real display of police incompetence.  

Parents came to the school to try to rescue their children.  Police stood there and refused any parent’s efforts to remove their children from danger.  It is far worse than this, however.  Parents, being held away, begged police to go inside and stop the shooter.  Could they have done this?  Well, presumably they were wearing some body armor and are presumably trained in self-defense and in controlling such a situation.  What IS their job?  The police tasered a parent who defied their orders to stand down.  Why not taser the shooter?  There is something terribly wrong here.  If SOMEONE inside that school had been carrying a concealed weapon this would, in all likelihood, have been stopped immediately.  There is something very sinister here.  Just whose side were these police on?  Who gave the order not to stop the shooter but to let him keep killing?  Why send police to an incident like this with orders to let it continue?  Just to make sure no one else stopped the shooting?  To run interference for the shooter?  Because that is what they did.  They helped the shooter achieve his goal.  Whose side are they on?  Whoever gave the order to stand by and allow the shooting of helpless children to continue needs to be personally prosecuted for this.  That person shares the blame for the deaths with the shooter himself as an accessory to the crime.

Think about this the next time you hear your favorite “conservative” commentator seeking answers.  This exercise serves only the totalitarians – it does nothing whatsoever to combat crime (unless one proposes to do this by treating us all like criminals).  We should seek to have more, not fewer, guns in the population and those who have them should be well-trained in the safe handling of them.  If the place for the shooting is eliminated it won't happen.  If people generally carry guns, it won't happen in shopping malls or restaurants either, because someone will stop it before it happens. 

All this tortured examination of the minds and souls and stories of these killers serves two interests – 1) the sensational press and entertainment industry and 2) those who would disarm honest and law-abiding citizens and those who would seek to control everyone either through preemptive punishment and monitoring (China-style) or just taking away our means of self-defense, which ultimately would serve the interests of the New World Order and Deep State.   Not the citizens and not our safety. 

When you hear people going on about what makes these shooters tick, instead of joining in or lending your attention, put your focus on how to make the total environment, the social “sea” a less inviting place to commit a crime.  More guns make for less crime.