Means and Motive Part Two: Mass Shootings

OK so we've talked about Air India and 9/11. Then we did a deeper dive into the logistics of means and motive. Now I want to take it one step further. We've seen how means and motive can help decipher false flags. Now let's take a look at how they apply to orchestrated events such as plandemics, arson or even mass shootings. Every crime has a means and motive.

Steven Seagal thinks a lot of mass shootings are engineered and so do I. I don't think they all are but I do think some are. How many? What percentage? I have no idea but if any are that is something we need to talk about because it opens up Pandora's box. If they were willing to do that then, what else are they willing to do and why? What is their motive?

OK let's look at one. The biggest one in US history. It serves as their rationale for banning ARs. The Orlando shooting doesn't make sense. A Gay Muslim walks into a Gay bar he frequented and goes on a shooting frenzy. The biggest inconsistency in that case is the number of people shot and the number of rounds fired. 49 people dead, 53 people injured and a firefight with police. That's a lot of reloading for one AR and one handgun.

Immediately we have a problem with means and motive. It's not physically possible for one person to fire that many rounds with one AR and one hand gun. There had to have been more than one shooter. Yet the narrative claims there was no other shooter. That means there is a problem with the narrative. Again we are forced to ask, if they lied about that, what else did they lie about? Why would a Gay guy shoot up a bar full of Gay people? It doesn't make sense. He didn't go there once and get snubbed. He frequented that bar. He was a regular. There's no motive for this mass shooting and that becomes a problem because every crime has a motive.

I will admit that there is a grey area around motive when it comes to mass shooting. To execute a mass shooting you have to be crazy so the motive won't necessarily be logical. "My ex left me so I'm going to shoot her dead as well as myself." WTF? Why would you do that? It makes no sense. Yet some people do. I'm not going to Dr Phil the motive. I'm just going to say that is bat sh*t crazy.

Likewise many years ago the US Post Office used to be a pretty toxic workplace full of harassment and abuse. As a result sometimes people would snap. They'd bring a gun to work, shoot their boss and a bunch of coworkers. Hence the term going postal. I'd be like, OK you lost your job and you're angry I get it but why on earth would you bring a gun to work and shoot your coworkers? That doesn't make sense. It's not going to get your job back and it's not going to make you feel any better. It's just plain crazy.

I don't want to be creepy but I can understand if his boss was an a*shole and was harassing him, he might snap and shoot him. I'm not saying that is acceptable because it is absolutely not. I'm just saying I can see a motive. It's like the kid who gets bullied in school then snaps and comes back with a gun to shoot the bully and the other kids who stood by and watched it happen. That is not acceptable and is not an appropriate expression of anger but again I can see a motive. It's a twisted Dr Phil motive but I can see a motive. It's some of the other ones like the Orlando shooting that concern me because I can't see any motive. Other than gun control. That brings us to the biggest mass shooting in Canada.

Before we dive into that I do want to concede that not all mass shootings are orchestrated. Which brings us to the right to bear arms. There are a lot of crazy people out there. Someone said one in four have some kind of mental health issue. I don't know if that's true or not but I will admit that there are a lot of people out there with mental health issues. Consequently I'm not sure everyone should have the right to own a gun. Now I realize a lot of gun advocates are going to have an aneurysm when they hear that. Especially the Americans. Point of Order, I'm not an American. I don't have the right to bear arms entrenched in my Constituion.

Yet even in the United States, if your are a felon, you don't have the right to bear arms. I'm kinda thinking if you're mentally ill you shouldn't own a gun either. How do you define mentally ill? I don't know. Granted it's a slippery slope because where do you draw the line? I don't know. All I'm saying is that some people out there are whack jobs and should not own a gun. Personally I think owning a gun is a privileged not a right. It's a sacred privileged. Hunting should be a right. As the Assembly of First Nation Chiefs said, hunting is a treaty right.

OK so back to Canada's largest mass shooting in Nova Scotia. There are a lot of strange things in that case. Motive is the first obvious one. In that shooting gun control is the only motive. The fact that it was timed to coincide with Justin Trudeau's over reaching gun control bill and was misused to rationalize it solidifies that fact. Yet there is a ship load of anomalies in that case.

The suspect was driving around in a police car wearing a police uniform. So witnesses didn't necessarily see the suspect shoot anyone they saw someone wearing a police uniform shoot people. Which brings us back to the fire hall. After the suspect(s) embarked on a shooting rampage, civilians were gathered in a fire hall where the police protected them.

Knowing that fire hall was a safe house for civilians with a uniformed officer out front, two under cover officers went on a shooting rampage targeting the vulnerable spots of the fire hall. In the fake inquiry they claimed they thought they were shooting at the suspect who was allegedly wearing a police uniform. That is a lie. They weren't shooting at the uniformed officer out front, they were shooting at the vulnerable spots of the fire hall - the roll up doors.

That's pretty shady. On top of that the RCMP were trying to defame the dead suspect by claiming he had a large sum of money deposited into his bank account right before the mass shooting. They were trying to claim he had ties to organized crime. Then we find out it was the RCMP that deposited that money into his bank account. That's shady. That's an anomaly. The fake inquiry did not explain why the RCMP deposited that money into his account before the shooting.

None of the suspect's guns were legally obtained. Using that horrific event to rationalize gun control was a dirty deed and a political trick. The other Canadian shooting I want to discuss is the Saanich fake bank robbery. The suspects were Mathew and Isaac Auchterlonie who are sons of Bob Auchterlonie. Although they are from the exact same area they aren't the sons of Admiral Bob Auchterlonie. Yet I find it hard to believe they are not related given the unique surname and the small town they were all from. Bob's your Uncle so to speak.

The suspects robbed a bank and after they secured the money they didn't leave. They stayed and waited for the police. One witness claimed one of the suspects was eerily calm. The narrative claims they didn't want to rob the bank they wanted to have a shootout with the police yet that doesn't make sense. If they didn't want to rob the bank, why did they insist the employee get them the money? Why didn't they leave when they had the money?

The narrative claims they wanted to kill cops. That doesn't make sense. Aside from the fact, why would they want to kill cops? Why would they rob a bank and put themselves at a strategic disadvantage to let them be surrounded by SWAT? If they wanted to kill cops, why didn't they walk into a police station? Again, other than gun control, there is no motive for that shooting.

Then there's the twist. The fake news ran a picture of fake blood and a forensic mannequin at the crime scene claiming it was a picture of a dead suspect. Yet it was not. It was a forensic mannequin. However, the fake news didn't say this is a forensic mannequin, they said it was a dead suspect. Was it a mistake or another lie? We'll probably never know.

Just like when the fake news ran that video of a full hospital in Italy during Covid and claimed it was a hospital in New York, specifically in Donald Trump's home town. When they were caught they simply admitted they made a mistake.

Yet they did the same thing in Australia after that. They used the same video of a hospital in Italy and claimed it was in Australia when we all knew it was not. Lies or mistake? You tell me. They frequently said empty hospitals were overflowing with Covid patients when they were not.