BLUF
This is a VERY SMALL list of the over 7,000 incidents listed at the http://SSRIStories.org website.
So IS this the ignored connection? Are these mass shooters on some sort of SSRI when they go off the reservation and dream up schemes from hell to do as much harm to others as they can while in an altered state of reality due to these DRUGS?
The SSRI Connection To Suicides, Spontaneous Murder and Mass Shootings.
Do we need MORE GUN CONTROL? Or BETTER PRESCRIPTION DRUG CONTROL?
Reason, logic and common sense should dictate the correct answer.
A mass shooting is defined as an incident where four or more people are shot. So far this year, the numbers average out to 11 mass shootings per week. 2021 saw a total of 692 mass shootings throughout the year.
Year 2022, just the first six months: – January: 41 mass shootings, 59 dead, 128 wounded February: 43 mass shootings, 40 dead, 174 wounded
March: 52 mass shootings, 47 dead, 217 wounded- April: 66 mass shootings, 75 dead, 271 wounded- May: 67 mass shootings, 87 dead, 324 wounded-June: 68 mass shootings, 78 dead, 275 wounded- These numbers accumulate to a total of 386 people dead and 1,389 people wounded.
I’m not sure how The Scotsman reporter Rachael Davies who wrote the article on 05/07/2022 came up with May and June numbers…but hey, that’s main stream media for you!
Now let’s take a look at mass shootings in the USA before 1968 and we will go back as far as 1954. 1968 was the year massive gun control reform was passed with the Gun Control Act. One of the provisions was that no longer could a rehabilitated felon ever have possession of a firearm. Let’s look at mass shootings prior to that day and realize that firearms were taken to school by boys who were going hunting afterwards and could be seen in the back windows of their pickups. That you could easily obtain firearms from a Sears & Roebuck catalog without back ground checks at all and have one sent directly to your home with no FFL dealer involved.
Dr. Deborah Birx: I knew shots would not prevent COVID infection
Former White House Covid Response Coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx to Neil: "50% of the people who died from the omicron surge were older, vaccinated. So that's why I'm saying even if you're vaccinated and boosted, if you're unvaccinated right now, the key is testing and paxolovid." pic.twitter.com/1oB62gFdCJ
— Neil Cavuto (@TeamCavuto) July 22, 2022
Defenders of federal officials, including President Biden, who declared one year ago that people who received the COVID-19 vaccines would not contract the disease argue “the science” changes over time.
But the White House coronavirus response coordinator at the time the vaccines were developed and rolled out said in an interview Friday she wasn’t surprised that people who were quadruple vaccinated, including Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci, contracted the disease.
“I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection and I think we overplayed the vaccines,” Birx told the Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto.
Birx, who is promoting a new book in which she confesses she manipulated data and quietly altered CDC guidance without authorization, was responding to the question of what she would say to unvaccinated people who in light of the ineffectiveness of the vaccines in preventing COVID might ask why they should bother getting the shots.
Man breaks into home, shot by resident in NE Portland
PORTLAND, Ore. (KPTV) – A man was shot by a resident after breaking into a home early Saturday morning, according to the Portland Police Bureau.
PPB said just after midnight Saturday, officers responded to a shooting in the 100 block of Northeast 22nd Avenue. They found a man who had been shot a few blocks away. They used a tourniquet on the arm of the man. He was taken to a hospital and is expected to survive.
As officers were treating the man, a resident called and said they were involved. Officers learned the resident shot the man after he entered their home. The resident is cooperative, and the investigation is ongoing.
BLUF
The only way to address gun violence is to do so head-on, with legislation that will actually protect our school children and encourage safe and responsible firearms ownership. We urge Congress to consider a more effective approach, such as hardening schools, allowing teachers to carry firearms in schools, and passing laws that support responsible gun ownership. The safety of all Americans depends on it.
Preventing responsible gun ownership will not make America safer
It has been an important few weeks for the public’s Second Amendment rights. In the first major gun rights decision since 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right to carry a concealed firearm by striking down a New York state law that made it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon outside their home legally, and wrongfully required individuals to demonstrate a “special need” for self-protection to qualify for a carry license. This was a major victory that will affect at least six other states with similar restrictive licensing requirements, also known as “may issue” laws.
Unfortunately, Congress took advantage of the recent school shooting tragedy in Uvalde, Texas, to pass gun control legislation even though that meant ignoring most voters who believe more gun control is not the path forward . The result is the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the first package of gun control legislation in decades.
While this bill makes significant and encouraging investments in school safety programs and our nation’s mental health system, it doesn’t fundamentally address the root causes of gun violence, and it even goes so far as to award taxpayer dollars to states that implement red flag laws.
Unsuspecting and well-meaning citizens might think these “pre-crime” laws, which would allow law enforcement to take away the firearms of someone deemed psychologically unfit to carry one, are a good idea. But in practice, they would target citizens before a crime has even been committed and deprive people of their right to due process.
But it hasn’t stopped there. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris recently campaigned for a ban of assault-style weapons, which are most commonly used for hunting, and high-capacity magazines. Biden’s White House has also proposed enacting storage restrictions and banning “ghost guns,” among other things.
All this despite the fact that Biden is on record saying that he “never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime.”
JUST IN – WHO declares #monkeypox a global health emergency. pic.twitter.com/ldl8s7deVt
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) July 23, 2022
Now that’s a selfie
‘Active Shooter Alert’ Bill, Designed to Scare, Draws in GOP Traitors and Suckers
“H.R. 6538, the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022, is not a public safety tool, but rather an anti-gun propaganda program intended to further public hysteria by hyper-inflating the authentic number of ‘active shooter’ incidents to expand support for unconstitutional gun control measures,” Gun Owners of America advised members in a mid-July alert. “Under the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022, justified self-defense shootings, gang violence, drug violence, or accidental shootings will be used to send alerts to the American people about the presence of an ‘active shooter’ to intentionally misguide the public and create mass hysteria.”
I imagine an uninterrupted night’s sleep would be damn near impossible on an average weekend in Chicago.
You’ll note whenever GOA uses the term on its own (as opposed to citing what the bill is named) they put the words “active shooter” in quotation marks. There’s a reason why that’s appropriate, and something gun owners should emulate. Per Firearms Coalition Managing Director and “proud active shooter” Jeff Knox:
“It is inaccurate because it does not include any direct suggestion of criminality, using ‘shooter’ to infer that, and it is insulting because by doing this, it implies that shooting is a criminal activity.”
Rep. Thomas Massie describes the bill more bluntly.
“House Democrats are trying to condition Americans to repeal the Second Amendment,” he warns, and he’s not using hyperbole. Any longtime gun owner who doesn’t recognize by now that yes, the prohibitionists really do want to take your guns, is either an oblivious fool or in the enemy camp. (There are also citizens new to owning guns who have never given the matter much thought to see how they’ve been lied to, who are ripe for manipulation and the subjects of another analysis.)
House Democrats are trying to condition Americans to repeal the Second Amendment. pic.twitter.com/MSOdkKbTBO
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) July 13, 2022
Two points:
Repealing the Second Amendment would not invalidate the right to keep and bear arms, which the Supreme Court has recognized, first in Cruikshank and later cited in Heller:
“The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”
Massie knows that. He also knows the Democrats want us to believe rights come from them, using the term “bill of rights” to propose government-mandated privileges that are generally dependent on dragooning (that is, enslaving) others to provide the “granted” services. (See “FDR’s ‘Second Bill of Rights’ and UN Declaration Show How ‘Progressives’ View You.”)
The second point is addressed directly to Donald Trump in the (admittedly improbable) hope that someone who knows him will call it to his attention: Don’t you think it’s past time you to publicly apologize to Rep. Massie and admit that he was right for putting the Constitution over GOP Democrat Lite politics?
As for the “Active Shooter” Alert bill, it passed in the House of Representatives with 43 “Republicans” either knowingly signing on with or being suckered in by a confirmed enemy of the Second Amendment, bill sponsor David Cicilline (D-RI). He’s the professional worm tongue who out of one corner of his mouth professes, “We all respect the Second Amendment but…” and out of the other corner snarls, “Spare me the bulls*** about Constitutional rights.”
The Biden administration and the new ‘Intolerable Acts’
In 1774, the British imposed the Intolerable Acts on the American colonies. These acts, also called the Coercive Acts, were punishment for the Americans’ disobedience to the crown, particularly as symbolized by the Boston Tea Party, a rebellion against a (relatively mild) increase in the tax on tea.
My fellow Americans, we have recently been subjected to a second set of Coercive Acts. Call them the Intolerable Acts 2.0.
These acts have been imposed on American citizens by their own supposedly representative government, the Biden administration, as punishment for disobedience to the Democrat party and the Deep State, as symbolized by the MAGA movement and the election of Donald Trump.
What are the new Intolerable Acts? I will list a number of them here for you now, many of them a result of executive fiat, not unlike those directed at the colonists by King George III.
– Rescinding the Keystone Pipeline permit, depriving his country’s citizens of vast quantities of oil and canceling countless well-paying jobs at the same time.
– Withdrawing oil and gas leases across the nation and its coastal waters, depriving his country’s citizens of vast quantities of oil and gas and canceling countless well-paying jobs at the same time.
– Dramatically restricting fracking and preventing all new extraction of oil or gas on federal lands, depriving his country’s citizens of vast quantities of oil and canceling countless well-paying jobs at the same time.
– Proposing and fostering other policies guaranteed to dramatically worsen inflation, adversely affecting all Americans lives, especially those with lower incomes and less leverage and fewer opportunities.
– Refusing to close or even effectively monitor or police our southern border, condemning Americans to suffer significant increases in violent crime, drug overdoses, sex-trafficking, and the proliferation of diseases like COVID-19.
– Treating illegal aliens far better than citizens in fly-over country, in many cases putting them up in hotels and then granting them sanctuary status, driver’s licenses and free education and health care…all paid for by taxpayers, including those dolts in fly-over country.
– Instituting policies guaranteed to worsen crime and supporting groups like Antifa and BLM that routinely burn and loot American cities — and sometimes kill innocent people and police officers.
– Jailing January 6 protesters, nearly all of whom were actually peaceful, in many cases indefinitely and without charging them, because, well, January 6 was, in some ways, the MAGA movement’s Tea Party.
– Sending the FBI and/or DOJ after individual political opponents, raiding their houses in the wee hours with preposterously overwhelming force, dragging them out in their underclothes — and making a spectacle of them for the media.
– Targeting legal firearm owners and attempting to repeal the God-given right to self-defense, a right more important now than ever before…due to the very policies of so-called progressives like those in the Biden administration who want to strip you of this inalienable right.
– Attempting to repeal the First Amendment and strip all of us of our right to free speech, religion, and assembly. Labeling speech with which they disagree as “hate speech.”
– Telling us that there is no way to definitively ascertain sex at birth…or any other time, for that matter.
– Attempting to force us to take an experimental gene therapy “vaccine” into our bodies, while simultaneously saying everyone should have the right to decide whether or not to kill their unborn babies because it’s “your body, and therefore your choice.”
There were five original Intolerable Acts. Those acts were the proximate cause of the First Continental Congress…and the American Revolution.
I have listed nearly three times that number of (what should effectively be considered to be) “intolerable Acts” the American government has imposed on its citizens in the past 18 months.
What say you, Americans?
Image via Picryl.
Concealed carry holder shot man who opened fire on his car at McDonald’s, prosecutors say
A 19-year-old man who has three felony juvenile cases pending was shot three times by a concealed carry holder after he opened fire on the man’s car in a McDonald’s parking lot Tuesday, prosecutors said. The victim, 49, and his 11-year-old daughter, who was in the back seat, were both unharmed.
Giovanni Castanon has carjacking, burglary, and aggravated battery cases pending in juvenile court, according to prosecutors. He is the 27th person accused of killing or shooting—or attempting to kill or shoot—someone in Chicago while on bail for a felony this year. The alleged crimes involved at least 58 victims, 12 of whom died.
Prosecutors said the concealed carry holder and his daughter were sitting in their car at McDonald’s on 106th Street near the Indiana state line when a masked man approached them and began yelling around 5:12 p.m.
The masked offender, identified by prosecutors as Castanon, pulled out a gun and fired several shots at the victim’s car, prompting the concealed carry holder to return fire.
Castanon fired more shots toward the car as he ran away, prosecutors said. Cops found him in a nearby residential garage with gunshot wounds to his hand, arm, and foot.
The entire incident was recorded by the restaurant’s security cameras.
Police found bullet holes on the victim’s passenger-side door, hood, and tire. However, neither the concealed carry holder nor the 11-year-old girl seated on the passenger side of the back seat were hurt.
Prosecutors said investigators never found the gun Castanon used to shoot at the victims. Castanon is charged with aggravated assault by discharging a firearm and aggravated discharge of a firearm into an occupied vehicle.
Suzin Farer, an assistant public defender, indicated that he works in demolition and is the father of a three-year-old child.
Bail was set at $300,000 with electronic monitoring by Judge Charles Beach, which means Castanon must post a $30,000 deposit to be released on house arrest. Beach also ordered him to stay away from the concealed carry holder and the man’s daughter.
“I’m quite sure you don’t wanna have any contact with that individual anymore,” Beach surmised.
No, mRNA Covid vaccines do not offer long-term protection from serious illness
Data from the Dutch government show the opposite – after seven months they substantially RAISE the risk of hospitalization and intensive care
mRNA vaccine advocates have one final defense against the failure of their billion-person experiment.
Okay, the shots won’t stop you from getting Covid. Or spreading it. Or having symptoms.
But they will stop you from getting very sick, and that protection lasts long after they stop working against infection.
Only it doesn’t.
Not against Omicron, anyway. And Omicron is only variant that matters now, since it’s the only variant that exists now.
An official government report from the Netherlands earlier this month has the truth.
On July 5, the RIVM – a research institute that is part of the Dutch Ministry of Health – reported a basic two-dose Covid vaccination offered no protection against Covid hospitalization. Worse, vaccinated people were 20 percent more likely to need intensive care than the unvaccinated.
“There was hardly any visible protective effect of the COVID-19 basic vaccination series against hospital and ICU – intensive care- intake,” the researchers wrote (understating the case).
—
The topline figures are bad enough.
The report is based on hospitalizations across the Netherlands from March 15 through June 28, not a small sample. And like the United States, the Dutch relied overwhelmingly on mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna – the supposed gold standard for Covid shots.
But the details in the report are even more disturbing.
The researchers stratified the risks of hospitalization and intensive care by time from vaccination and the age of the infected person – and those show that the risks increase over time.
After seven months, vaccinated people in their fifties and sixties had a 68 percent higher risk of being hospitalized for Covid compared to the unvaccinated. They had a 41 percent higher risk of needing intensive care.
The trends were similar for people 70 and over, though most of them had been boosted or received a fourth shot, so comparisons were harder to make.
(Negative vaccine effectiveness, it’s a thing. A very bad thing.)
Again, this negative effectiveness is against severe disease – hospitalizations and intensive care.
Not infection, severe disease.
—
The report also showed that boosters and fourth shots did reverse the negative efficacy against hospitalization and intensive care and provide some protection. That fact led the researchers to call for vaccinated people to receive boosters.
But the effectiveness of boosters and fourth shots against severe disease also sharply and quickly declined.
In people 70 and over, the effectiveness of a booster against hospitalization fell from 85 percent in the first month to under 50 percent by five months out. The trends for the fourth shot were similar, but worse. Though the researchers did not have five months of data for the fourth shot, by roughly three months, protection had fallen to 60 percent.
—
The results could not be clearer, or grimmer.
The mRNA vaccines fail within a few months and then begin to raise the risk of serious outcomes.
Why?
The promise that the mRNA shots will produce durable T-cell protection against severe disease appears faulty. Any protection the shots offer against hospitalization or death probably results from their antibody-driven protection against infection, which lasts only a few months.
Repeated shots can reverse the trend, but they too fail, and each additional shot appears to do less and fail more quickly. Worst of all, because the shots cause recipients to produce antibodies to the original coronavirus rather than Omicron’s mutated spike, vaccinated people now have a higher risk of Omicron infection – which means they have a higher risk of hospitalization or death.
Worst of all, the Dutch collected this data during the spring, when the existing Omicron subvariant was relatively mild. Now Omicron has mutated again, and we do not at this point know if the new variant is more or less dangerous.
But the trends from countries like New Zealand – which are test cases for Omicron’s potential virulence because they are highly mRNA vaccinated and have little preexisting natural immunity – are not promising.
Buckle up.
To have a volunteer force requires…..volunteers. When you have policies that insult and denigrate the largest group of people that volunteer, well…..
If a foreign government forced this on our military, it would righteously be called an act of war.
US Army Abandons Recruitment Goals, But Not Its Woke Policies
The Army cut its force size projections for 2022 and 2023 Tuesday in the midst of a historic recruitment struggle, raising questions about overall readiness as it clings to its “woke” agenda.
The Army could miss its recruitment goal for 2022 by 25%, Army Gen. Joseph Martin, vice chief of staff for the Army, told The Associated Press. Projected end strength, the total size of the Army including active and reserve components, is set to decrease by 10,000 troops this year and an additional 14,000 to 21,000 in 2023.
“Do we lower standards to meet end strength, or do we lower end strength to maintain a quality, professional force? We believe the answer is obvious—quality is more important than quantity,” Lt. Col. Randee Farrell, spokeswoman for Army Secretary Christine Wormuth, told the AP.
Investigations into extremism in the ranks, diversity quotas, rigid vaccination mandates and other “woke” policies have undermined military recruitment by alienating families, the military’s largest recruiting market, according to Center for Military Readiness founder Elaine Donnelly. The Pentagon’s insistence on social justice over meritocracy, lowering of standards and “anti-recruiting messages” pushes away potential recruits, Donnelly told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Secretary Wormuth is ignoring the ‘check engine’ light on her dashboard. She keeps driving on, failing to notice how the administration’s policies are making the recruiting crisis worse,” said Donnelly.
The Army has achieved only 50% of its overall recruitment goal of 60,000 soldiers for fiscal year 2022 that ends in October, according to the AP.
The Army attained 17,800 new recruits to active duty service out of a 2002 goal of 26,000 as of April, according to data from the Department of Defense. The recruitment objective fell 20% from 2021, when by April the Army had brought on 28,000 active duty recruits, well on its way to the yearly goal of 32,000.
For comparison, by April 2017, the Army had achieved nearly 100% of its active duty recruiting goal.
Addressing ways to improve Army recruitment, Martin focused on improving climate within the service, including on issues like extremism.
“To compete for talent, the Army must provide a workplace environment free of harmful behaviors, to include sexual assault, sexual harassment, racism, extremism, and the risk factors which lead to death by suicide,” he said at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.
Despite force size drawdowns and plans to increase personnel spending, service leaders have argued that Congress is underfunding military readiness accounts that deal with maintenance and operations, according to House Readiness Subcommittee Chairman Republican Rep. John Garamendi of California, who spoke at the hearing Tuesday.
“On the spending issues, Congress should start asking very specific questions about the costs of LGBT mandates, experimental training like the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) fiasco, replacements for personnel discharged due to COVID issues, etc.,” Donnelly told the DCNF. “Woke attitudes and mandates are not free.”
The Department of Defense did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment. The Army declined to comment.
As I recall, ‘to secure..rights, Government are instituted…”. Seems that protecting free speech would be part of ‘Job 1’.
Limited government action may be needed to protect free speech, law professor argues.
A renowned George Washington University law professor recently called for limited government support for free speech, particularly on college campuses.
“The greatest danger is that the government will seek not to protect free speech but favor particular speech,” Professor Jonathan Turley wrote in a July 16 email to The College Fix. “My proposals are structured to confine government intervention to content neutral measures that protect the diversity of viewpoints.”
Turley defended limited government action to protect free speech in an article published July 9 by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy titled “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States.”
“If we are to preserve this defining right, we may have to embrace the incongruous notion of coercing free speech,” Turley wrote in the article.
The piece included a section on college campuses, in which Turley argued that “any effort to reinforce free speech values in the United States must focus on universities, which play a vital role as enclaves for political and intellectual discourse.”
“The most chilling examples of intolerance have come from campuses of higher education,” he wrote. Furthermore, “the ultimate responsibility for the erosion of free speech values in our country … rests with academics, journalists, and others who actively support actions taken against those with opposing views or stand silent.”
Turley proposed in the article several solutions to free speech limitations on campuses, including making federal funding to state universities conditional upon compliance with principles of free speech.