Oregon community college shooting

[MarkW]

One might argue that it's easier to have a successful homicide with a gun.

 

At any rate, it gets very political when you try to get into this topic in too much depth, but I'll say that after a certain few presidents I'm not sure I trust my government well enough to round up all the guns, and I'm not the tin foil hat type. Government officials need to remember who they work for (but to be fair, as a group US citizens have been pretty lax in allowing them to forget through sucky civic participation levels (ie voting))

 

And that's as political as I dare get. :)

[SKL]

More guns mean more homicide. 

 

" Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

 

And

 

"We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded."

 

Well, this goes against other research and logic (I mean, Switzerland has a higher homicide rate than Guatemala now?).  So I am skeptical.

 

Also, they said "more guns," but I assume that includes illegally owned guns, which would be the majority of the guns in a location with strict gun control.  Obviously there are lots of guns in Chicago.  What does that prove?

[abba12]

I've brought this up before in gun control discussions here, and every time someone tells me how wrong I am and how well-trained all the responsible gun owners are, and how they would be like Rambo in a shooting an take the bad guy out. :001_rolleyes:  But most people seriously overestimate their ability to pull out a gun and shoot another human being, even if that human being is a threat. Unless you have law enforcement training, there's a good chance you're going to be running away with everyone else even if you have a handgun tucked in your purse. 

 

Yup. And statistically, if you carry a gun and are attacked, you're more likely to have it taken and used against you than you are to shoot your attacker. 

 

THIS. It's all well and good to say 'oh, I'll get a gun to protect myself and if I'm attacked I can shoot them'. But, when actually faced with pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger, most people can't do it. Which is good, by the way. We SHOULD hesitate to take life, even when the person is attacking us. But it turns carrying a weapon from 'self defence' to 'supplying the criminal with a weapon the police can't trace back to him'. 

 

 

Here's an interesting study.

 

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

 

The study found that banning guns, England did in January 1997, did not lower the murder/manslaughter rate in the country.  In fact, the study found that the murder rate went up, then bounced around but is still higher than when the ban took place..  

 

I believe the U.S. Constitution should have the final say on this issue.   :patriot:

 

If someone wants to murder another single person they'll find a way, if not a gun then something else. and a lot of those deaths are among the gangs/drug trade who generally do have guns which they use on each other anyway. The only thing banning guns would achieve is preventing mass murder in these sorts of shootings, which is exactly what has happened. Their murder rates didn't go down because they banned guns early on in this mass shooting craze, their murder rates hadn't increased for shootings in the first place. So, the number slightly increasing, likely in line with population growth and certain social issues, is a good result. It was a matter of prevention in this case. England does not have mass shootings, and has very few mass killings of any sort, that culture never developed in that country. 

 

 

More guns mean more homicide. 

 

"We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded."

 

Because guns make killing easier. The people who would shoot someone would hesitate at the idea of taking them face to face with a knife. I personally think it also causes a type of cultural shift where these things with no purpose other than killing are legal, it makes the idea of killing more accessable in their minds. 

[Farmgirl70]

I grew up with brothers who hunt, shot 22s at tin cans, and the like (I have no problem with that). I currently live in a neighborhood that has seen lots of gang and drug related violence.  I am baffled when people argue that regulating guns won't help. Making certain weapons illegal would reduce the ease with which people could be killed in great number. (c'mon, what good reason is there to own an assault rifle?what purpose do they serve, other than to kill people? You don't hunt deer with one, that I know.) Why not make it harder to get guns? I am not advocating an all out ban, but I have seen too many people's lives cut short to think we shouldn't try to make some changes. And please don't tell me they'd just use knives. If someone comes at you with a knife, at least you have a fighting chance. You can't hold back a bullet. 

[Mergath]

THIS. It's all well and good to say 'oh, I'll get a gun to protect myself and if I'm attacked I can shoot them'. But, when actually faced with pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger, most people can't do it. Which is good, by the way. We SHOULD hesitate to take life, even when the person is attacking us. But it turns carrying a weapon from 'self defence' to 'supplying the criminal with a weapon the police can't trace back to him'. 

 

 

Yep. I mean, I grew up in northern MN surrounded by hunters and guns. I got my firearm safety certificate in sixth grade. I was in the Army and received military weapons training. And I know that I couldn't point a gun at someone and shoot them, even if my life was in danger. (Probably a good thing I ended up leaving the Army for medical reasons after less than a year.) I might be able to do it if dd was in danger, but beyond that, I couldn't do it. When I was in boot camp they made us watch a video of a convenience store clerk who had been shot and was dying of a chest wound. A real video with full audio, not some dramatized thing. I don't know where they got it, but yeah. It was the most horrible thing I've ever seen, even to this day. Any notions I had about guns being exciting and fun were dispelled the instant I saw that (which, I'm guessing, is why they showed it in the first place). There is a universe of difference between someone getting shot in a movie and someone dying from a gunshot wound in real life. 

 

Now that I think about it, maybe they should make anyone who wants to apply for a CC permit watch a video like that. I can guarantee it would cut down on the number of people who want to carry a gun because they think it's cool.

[SporkUK]

Just as selectively comparing crime categories doesn't tell us much, neither does comparing two very different (even if both Western) cultures with very different political landscapes.

 

I bet wealth disparity in the UK is way lower than the US, which would also correlate with these crime rates every bit as well as gun laws, with "correlate" being the important word, for example.

 

You may lose that bet depending on what data you used. We literally have people starving on the streets vs people living on massive country estates and castles. We literally have a government that had to report on how many people died within 6 weeks of being affected by recent changes - and it went into the thousands, many from poverty-related causes including starving.  We have communities that have been crumbling for decades with the destruction of industries with no help or hope.  We may not have people getting into massive debt for basic health care like in the US, but wealth disparity and lack of social mobility the UK has in spades. I cannot imagine more disparity than royal family and dying homeless.

 

We had riots across the country in 2011, we literally have people starving to death while our politicians get their bar in Parliament subsidized with taxes, we have mass protests but no mass shootings. We have people fighting to bring back fox hunting with dogs and the death penalty, but there is no energy for greater access to guns even in the face of the riots. The Dunblane school massacre, where 16 5 year old were murdered with their teacher, took a very traditional and then a very gun heavy country not dissimilar in amount to the US and changed popular and political opinion. It doesn't make any of them disappear (and the law changes were focused on preventing further mass casualties  - which it was successful at - rather than reducing homicide rates especially considering homicide rates naturally go up with population density which has risen massively in the UK) but the attitude and cultural around guns changed with Dunblane. 

 

Sadly, with what has already happened in the US, I cannot imagine an event big enough that would cause the same there. The idea of something that big frightens me.  It isn't even the constitution - there is nothing in the wording to prevent greater rules behind licensing just as the amendments about voting laws doesn't stop several states making their rules about how people can register. And that's before we get into the constitution has been changed many times and has some really off stuff in it still that people are fighting against (slavery is illegal - except as a punishment for a crime as an obvious example) and laws are only there through cooperation and/or force. It's just that I think it would need to be really big compared to what brought about the shift for other countries as so much has already happened in the US that hasn't done it.

[MarkW]

I don't think I'd lose it but I'm willing to bet that 90% of the monetary assets in your country aren't owned by less than 1% of the population.

[SporkUK]

I said it would depend on what data you are using though the most recent stats I've seen say the top 1% in the US controlled ~50% of the financial asset and owned about a third. The top 20% owns about 85-87%. They're likely quite comparable but the idea that the UK is so much more equal is a big reason we have less gun crime is laughable. If this were truly my country, I would have spit out tea reading such an idea, but I've never taken to the stuff (as it says in my signature, I'm from the US, I'm giving a point of view from both sides of the pond). 

 

In the UK, the ownership of land wealth and concentration of power are clearer stats here as so many at the top own a lot abroad which alters how much UK wealth they have (~1/3 of all land in the UK belongs to a titled family, over 30% of MPs come from 2 universities) and recent austerity charges by the government has left thousands dead within weeks of changes and over a million on reliant on food banks to survive.  We have riots and mass protests, but no mass shooting and no desire for changes to gun laws even when London was burning. Personally, even if your stat were correct, as someone who has lived a while on both sides I've found that the disparity is rubbed in people's faces a lot more in the UK than the US. People dying of starvation, many at the bottom predicted to lose thousands of pounds in yearly income with tax changes coming in, and the Prime Minister wants to tell us we're all in it together while taking over a million of pounds of taxpayer's money "to relax". The classism is far more inescapable, like Christmas decorations (as there is no separation of church and state here, it's everywhere - even now - even my kids complain about it when they spotted some last week - thankfully they aren't in school as there are no secular schools here either - all Christian unless a school applies to be another religion - so they'd get it even more there. I never found Xmas decorations as overwhelming the States either even in super-church territory. The need for distraction is a theory I've put for before on this). 

 

As I said, The UK used to be a massive gun country and is still very traditional. We still have people fighting to ride around in little red suits on horses to chase a fox with dogs so they can watch it be torn apart because "it's traditional"/"it's the culture of the countryside that needs protecting". Dunblane made people willing to change when it came to guns, took a traditional country with a big rural hunting culture base realize the effort and change was worth it - and there is no energy to change that back even with the government's actions on one side and riots on the other. Guns are more associated with terrorists than protecting oneself or ones' home for most I know here. The laws did what they were designed to do which had nothing to do with lowering homicide or general crime rates but preventing further mass casualties. I cannot even attempt to imagine an event big enough that would encourage the US to change after all that it's been through nor any change to the US's economy that would shift anything either. With the voting laws coming in left and right that prevents some groups from voting (even when denying those over 18 their right to vote is against the US Constitution) more than voter fraud it will be even harder to get political will for change as some of the popular will means less to them. 

[kroe1]

Interesting how one can overlay a U.S. Map of physician opiate prescribing practices and it correlates well with gun related deaths.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/opioid-prescribing/index.html

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/11-essential-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

 

While we get worked up over the 600 people who have died in mass shootings since 1984, the number of actual handgun deaths is approximately 30 to 40 thousand a year in the U.S. Another 10 to 20 thousand homicides are caused without guns each year.

 

In the state of Florida, there was a huge, very effective, crackdown on physician opiate prescribing abuse beginning in 2010. Homicide rates have gone down since then, but the trend was declining anyway so hard to tell if decreased inappropriate opiate prescriptions had any effect. In the meantime, illegal opiate abuse here in Florida, including heroin has escalated greatly.

 

Nonetheless, it still is no coincidence, in my mind, that Mexico and the U.S. are so violent, and both have such high rates of opiate consumption.

[liber]

Just heard that he asked the victims their religion and whoever answered "Christian" was shot in the head, while those who answered something else or gave no answer were shot on the leg? Has anyone else heard this? The Catholic radio station didn't elaborate much more, they are waiting to get more details from the police... I hope this is not true? The whole thing is just so messed up!

 

Yes, apparently he was targeting Christians.  Nary a peep about that though.  I suppose if it was another group of people the media would be all over that.  Sad to say, not surprised about that though.

[Mergath]

Yes, apparently he was targeting Christians. Nary a peep about that though. I suppose if it was another group of people the media would be all over that. Sad to say, not surprised about that though.

One of the people who was actually there in the room said that's not true. He was asking people about their religions and kind of mocking them, but he wasn't targeting any particular religion. One of the victims was apparently a Wiccan.

[liber]

One of the people who was actually there in the room said that's not true. He was asking people about their religions and kind of mocking them, but he wasn't targeting any particular religion. One of the victims was apparently a Wiccan.

 

And other eyewitnesses say otherwise.

[Mergath]

And other eyewitnesses say otherwise.

 

I haven't read any direct eyewitness statements saying that. The ones I read were all things like, "My daughter was there and told me he was targeting Christians," though maybe it's just the articles I'm reading. But from what I've read and from what the one witness who spoke said, it sounds like he was targeting members of all organized religion, not specifically Christians.

[Chess Dad]

One of the people who was actually there in the room said that's not true. He was asking people about their religions and kind of mocking them, but he wasn't targeting any particular religion. One of the victims was apparently a Wiccan.

 

The New York Post has a good story on this.  Apparently, if you said you were a Christian then you were shot in the head, and if you said nothing or no then you were shot legs.  Sounds like he was singling out Christians to me.  

 

http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/oregon-gunman-singled-out-christians-during-rampage/

[Mergath]

The New York Post has a good story on this.  Apparently, if you said you were a Christian then you were shot in the head, and if you said nothing or no then you were shot legs.  Sounds like he was singling out Christians to me.  

 

http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/oregon-gunman-singled-out-christians-during-rampage/

 

He was asking people their religion and then shooting them if they were religious, not just Christian. None of the statements that he was specifically targeting Christians came from eyewitnesses.

[justasque]

The New York Post has a good story on this.  Apparently, if you said you were a Christian then you were shot in the head, and if you said nothing or no then you were shot legs.  Sounds like he was singling out Christians to me.  

 

http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/oregon-gunman-singled-out-christians-during-rampage/

 

The referenced articles they cite in the article do not support their headline.  I've not seen any primary sources (interviews with witnesses) that back up this version of the story (Christian, as opposed to religious), and I've seen at least one primary source that supported the "religious" version of the story.

 

Let's be very careful about understanding where our information comes from, lest we spread untruths.  Since many witnesses are still hospitalized it may be some time before we get a full account of what happened.  Until then, it's best to reserve judgement, and to read critically in terms of an author's source of information, and speculation vs. accurate, word-for-word reporting of actual witness accounts.  We always want the "bad guy" to be "one of them, not one of us", but lets be careful about the potential to create an untrue narrative rather than seeking a more complex truth.

[justasque]

And other eyewitnesses say otherwise.

 

Cite?

[Chess Dad]

He was asking people their religion and then shooting them if they were religious, not just Christian. None of the statements that he was specifically targeting Christians came from eyewitnesses.

 

Well, this article says different.

 

http://joeforamerica.com/2015/10/eyewitness-says-oregon-mass-murderer-shot-christians-in-the-head-others-in-the-legs/

 

It says more than one witness claimed the shooter was targeting Christians.  I guess as time goes by we will learn more about what happened, but it sure looks like he did from the early witnesses.  

 

Part of the article clearly says the shooter was targeting Christians.:

 

-Eyewitness: “The shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christian. If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs. My grandma just got to my house, and she was in the room. She wasn’t shot, but she is very upset…â€

Kortney Moore, an 18-year-old student at Umpqua Community College who was also in the room, told Oregon’s News Review that the shooter was indeed on the hunt for Christians.-

 

Bottom line is, we will get a clearer picture in a week or so when most or all of what happened comes out.

[Mergath]

Well, this article says different.

 

http://joeforamerica.com/2015/10/eyewitness-says-oregon-mass-murderer-shot-christians-in-the-head-others-in-the-legs/

 

It says more than one witness claimed the shooter was targeting Christians.  I guess as time goes by we will learn more about what happened, but it sure looks like he did from the early witnesses.  

 

Part of the article clearly says the shooter was targeting Christians.:

 

-Eyewitness: “The shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christian. If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs. My grandma just got to my house, and she was in the room. She wasn’t shot, but she is very upset…â€

Kortney Moore, an 18-year-old student at Umpqua Community College who was also in the room, told Oregon’s News Review that the shooter was indeed on the hunt for Christians.-

 

That article is full of errors, sorry. Like the "eyewitness" statement that is someone retelling what their grandmother told them. If you didn't see it yourself, you aren't an eyewitness, or even a witness. You're just playing a game of telephone. And the article you linked states that Kortney Moore says he was targeting Christians, but if you read the NYPost article, it says: 

 

Kort­ney Moore, 18, said she saw the teacher of her Writing 115 class get shot in the head at the college’s Snyder Hall before the gunman started asking people to state their religion and opening fire, the city’s News-Review newspaper reported.

 

Religion does not equal Christian. Like I said before, he was targeting anyone religious, not just Christians. Otherwise why did he also murder someone who said she was Wiccan? Not that it really matters in the end, but I know of too many talking heads (case in point: Joe the Plumber of the above article who is claiming the shooter was a muslim?!?)  who would love to spin this into "liberals murdering Christians!!!" or whatever, and the last thing we need is yet more partisan divisiveness.

 

ETA: I mean seriously, wtf did this guy get that the shooter was a muslim? Every single thing I've seen states that he's some flavor of libertarian who hates all organized religion. Are we at the "blatantly making shit up" stage now?

[Chess Dad]

That article is full of errors, sorry. Like the "eyewitness" statement that is someone retelling what their grandmother told them. If you didn't see it yourself, you aren't an eyewitness, or even a witness. You're just playing a game of telephone. And the article you linked states that Kortney Moore says he was targeting Christians, but if you read the NYPost article, it says: 

 

Kort­ney Moore, 18, said she saw the teacher of her Writing 115 class get shot in the head at the college’s Snyder Hall before the gunman started asking people to state their religion and opening fire, the city’s News-Review newspaper reported.

 

Religion does not equal Christian. Like I said before, he was targeting anyone religious, not just Christians. Otherwise why did he also murder someone who said she was Wiccan? Not that it really matters in the end, but I know of too many talking heads (case in point: Joe the Plumber of the above article who is claiming the shooter was a muslim?!?)  who would love to spin this into "liberals murdering Christians!!!" or whatever, and the last thing we need is yet more partisan divisiveness.

 

ETA: I mean seriously, wtf did this guy get that the shooter was a muslim? Every single thing I've seen states that he's some flavor of libertarian who hates all organized religion. Are we at the "blatantly making shit up" stage now?

 

Again, we will get the details over the next few weeks.  Muslim, targeting Christians, or just your everyday run of the mill nut case.  Time will tell us soon enough.  There were plenty of witnesses and survivors to piece it together.

[Mergath]

Again, we will get the details over the next few weeks.  Muslim, targeting Christians, or just your everyday run of the mill nut case.  Time will tell us soon enough.  There were plenty of witnesses and survivors to piece it together.

 

He's not a Muslim. The extreme right-wing websites are trying to claim he is because he has a myspace page and one of his friends is Muslim, which is about the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.  And trying to claim that a nut who hated all religion is actually a Muslim trying to murder Christians is dangerous and irresponsible, and the media outlets pushing this should be ashamed of themselves.

[justasque]

Well, this article says different.

 

http://joeforamerica.com/2015/10/eyewitness-says-oregon-mass-murderer-shot-christians-in-the-head-others-in-the-legs/

 

It says more than one witness claimed the shooter was targeting Christians.  I guess as time goes by we will learn more about what happened, but it sure looks like he did from the early witnesses.  

 

Part of the article clearly says the shooter was targeting Christians.:

 

-Eyewitness: “The shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christian. If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs. My grandma just got to my house, and she was in the room. She wasn’t shot, but she is very upset…â€

Kortney Moore, an 18-year-old student at Umpqua Community College who was also in the room, told Oregon’s News Review that the shooter was indeed on the hunt for Christians.-

 

Bottom line is, we will get a clearer picture in a week or so when most or all of what happened comes out.

 

 

OK, let's do some critical analysis of this article, published on joeforamerica.com.  Here's the text:

 

 

The 26-year-old alleged Muslim who opened fire at an Oregon community college was forcing people to stand up and state their religion before he began blasting away at them, survivors reported Thursday.

The NY Post reports:

Eyewitness: “The shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christian. If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs. My grandma just got to my house, and she was in the room. She wasn’t shot, but she is very upset…â€

Kortney Moore, an 18-year-old student at Umpqua Community College who was also in the room, told Oregon’s News Review that the shooter was indeed on the hunt for Christians.

Moments after hearing a bullet come flying through a window, she said the 20-year-old shooter made his way inside and targeted their teacher, pumping a single round into their head.

As the young man ordered people to the ground, Moore laid patiently with her classmates and waited, according to the News Review.

Once they all got down, she said the gunman began asking people to rise and say what their religion was.

After they stood and gave their answer, he started shooting.

Hat tip/ NY Post

The joeforamerica.com article begins:

 

"The 26-year-old alleged Muslim who opened fire at an Oregon community college was forcing people to stand up and state their religion before he began blasting away at them, survivors reported Thursday."

 

Note that there is absolutely no citation for this "alleged Muslim" claim.  We have to throw that out entirely unless we can find some kind of credible source for it.

 

The NY Post reports:

Eyewitness: “The shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christian. If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs. My grandma just got to my house, and she was in the room. She wasn’t shot, but she is very upset…â€

 

This quote is labeled "eyewitness", but the way I read it, the speaker's Grandma was in the room, not the speaker themself.  This is not a primary source, so we should not take it as an "eyewitness account".  Little things (the difference between "religious" and "Christian") can change as one person tells another of their experience, and that person then puts it in their own words, sometimes changing the meaning entirely.  It's possible that the speaker here is accurately conveying their grandmother's experience, but we can't say for sure.  We must reserve judgement until we find an actual eyewitness account.

 

Let's look at the cited New York Post (NYP) article to see if it provides any clarity.  

“[He started] asking people one by one what their religion was. ‘Are you a Christian?’ he would ask them, and if you’re a Christian, stand up. And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you are going to see God in just about one second.’ And then he shot and killed them,†Stacy Boylen, whose daughter was wounded at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., told CNN.

 

This NYP article, again, does not quote an eyewitness.  The quoted speaker is the mother of an eyewitness.  Again, the subtle-but-important difference of "Christian" vs. "religious" may have been lost in a whisper-down-the-lane scenario - which is exactly why primary sources are so important.

 

This NYP article goes on:

A Twitter user named @bodhilooney, who said her grandmother was at the scene of the carnage, tweeted that if victims said they were Christian, “then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs.â€

 

This is likely the person quoted above, though we don't know that.  Either way, this is not an eyewitness account - it is the Grandmother who is the eyewitness, not the speaker.

 

The NYP article then goes on to say:

Gunman Chris Harper-Mercer’s disdain for religion was evident in an online profile, in which he became a member of a “doesn’t like organized religion†group on an Internet dating site.

 

Interestingly, this quote from the NYP article directly contradicts the joeforamerica.com article, which is otherwise heavily based on the NYP article.  So in these two articles, we have two very different descriptions of the shooter's religious beliefs - one "allegedly Muslim", the other "disdain for religion" and "doesn't like organized religion".  Clearly he can't be both of these things; which raises questions about the joeforamerica's author's attention to detail in his information gathering, and thus encourages a healthy skepticism of the rest of the article.

 

Turning back to the joeforamerica article: 

Kortney Moore, an 18-year-old student at Umpqua Community College who was also in the room, told Oregon’s News Review that the shooter was indeed on the hunt for Christians.  Moments after hearing a bullet come flying through a window, she said the 20-year-old shooter made his way inside and targeted their teacher, pumping a single round into their head.  As the young man ordered people to the ground, Moore laid patiently with her classmates and waited, according to the News Review.

Once they all got down, she said the gunman began asking people to rise and say what their religion was.

After they stood and gave their answer, he started shooting.

Hat tip/ NY Post

 

Note that this description does not specify "Christians", nor does it describe any different actions based on the response of the victims (e.g shooting in the head vs. legs).  (The line "the shooter was indeed on the hunt for Christians" appears to be the author's words, not Kortney Moore's words.)  The joeforamerica author does not provide a citation for Ms. Moore's description, nor is the description a direct quote, so again we are left without a primary source for the information, though this seems to be the closest in the joeforamerica article.  The next step in attempting to verify the claims in the joeforamerica article would be to hunt down the News Review article, for which joeforamerica does not provide a link.

 

I'm not saying that the "targeting Chrisitans" claim is untrue; rather, I'm saying that I have yet to see a primary source that describes the incident in a way that backs up that claim.

[justasque]

...

 

Note that this description does not specify "Christians", nor does it describe any different actions based on the response of the victims (e.g shooting in the head vs. legs).  The joeforamerica author does not provide a citation for Ms. Moore's description, nor is the description a direct quote, so again we are left without a primary source for the information, though this seems to be the closest in the joeforamerica article.  Note that the line "the shooter was indeed on the hunt for Christians" appears to be the author's words, not Kortney Moore's words.  The next step would be to hunt down the News Review article, for which joeforamerica does not provide a link.

 

...

 

 

Here's an article from the Oregon News Review which references Ms. Moore's description, but does not directly quote her:

 

Kortney Moore, 18, from Rogue River, was in her Writing 115 class in Snyder Hall when one shot came through a window. She saw her teacher get shot in the head. The shooter was inside at that point, and he told people to get on the ground. The shooter was asking people to stand up and state their religion and then started firing away, Moore said. Moore was lying there with people who had been shot.

 

Note that there is no reference to "Christians", and nothing about differing treatment for those who responded with different answers.

 

It is wise that we are careful to get our information from primary sources, lest we construct a mythical story that does not jive with the reality.  Only by accurately understanding the finer details of this kind of incident do we have a hope of preventing the next one.  Clearly, no matter who was targeted or what twisted reasoning the shooter employed in choosing them, this incident was horrific.  Fanning the flames of the culture wars without accurate, primary-source information can only harm an already hurting nation.  

[Garga]

. With the voting laws coming in left and right that prevents some groups from voting (even when denying those over 18 their right to vote is against the US Constitution)

What laws are those? I haven't heard of this and am curious. I don't even know how to google it because I don't know what the context is or anything.

[Butter]

What laws are those? I haven't heard of this and am curious. I don't even know how to google it because I don't know what the context is or anything.

 

I'm guessing she means voter ID laws.

[justasque]

What laws are those? I haven't heard of this and am curious. I don't even know how to google it because I don't know what the context is or anything.

 

This article from Snopes gives a fairly even-handed report of the controversy.  The concern is that the relatively new voter ID laws (which require that voters produce a photo ID at the polls) will disenfranchise those who do not have a driver's license, because they do not drive and/or cannot obtain a non-driver ID because of cost or logistics, and that the people affected by this are more likely to vote for one party than another.  When Alabama decided to close Driver's Licence centers in many predominately Black counties (and increased the cost of an ID), apparently for budget reasons, the concern was that they would be exacerbating the disenfranchisement of otherwise eligible voters.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

I just watched CNN and they interviewed a lady (Tracy Hue) who was in the classroom, and got shot in the hand.

 

The guy sounds like a sadistic a**hole. He told a girl in a wheelchair to get back in her chair, and shot her while she was trying to :(

 

She said he asked, "Are you Christian? Do you believe in God?" If they said "Yeah," then he responded with, "Good, I'll send you to God." "You'll be meeting God soon."

 

He also asked them about being Catholic.

 

She said that no matter how they responded- he shot them either/any way.

[poppy]

The mom was an open carry advocate . Guns are absolutely what this story is about: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mom-of-oregon-shooter-bragged-about-her-arsenal-of-weapons-online-report/ar-AAf3vsq?li=AAa0dzB&ocid=HPCDHP

[SKL]

So if a gunman comes in and asks people about their religion and shoots them in the head if they say Christian / Religious whatever, that probably wasn't an attack related to religion.

 

But if a kid builds something his teacher reports as a possible bomb, where nobody has been accused of saying a word about religion in the whole mess (until afterward in the media), it is 100% obvious that was an attack related to religion.

 

We are so rational.  It's no wonder we manage to solve all the world's problems instead of making them worse.

[Mergath]

So if a gunman comes in and asks people about their religion and shoots them in the head if they say Christian / Religious whatever, that probably wasn't an attack related to religion.

 

But if a kid builds something his teacher reports as a possible bomb, where nobody has been accused of saying a word about religion in the whole mess (until afterward in the media), it is 100% obvious that was an attack related to religion.

 

We are so rational.  It's no wonder we manage to solve all the world's problems instead of making them worse.

 

Nobody said it wasn't related to religion. He obviously hated organized religion, and said so on the internet. People are just saying he wasn't only targeting Christians. I don't know what in the world the kid who made the clock has to do with this.  :huh:

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Nobody said it wasn't related to religion. He obviously hated organized religion, and said so on the internet. People are just saying he wasn't only targeting Christians. I don't know what in the world the kid who made the clock has to do with this.  :huh:

 

Just a reminder that Americans are expected to categorize, stereotype, and bandwagon without nuance or subtlety. Which side are you on? That is the only question of the day. Group A always believes ABC. Group B always believes XYZ. Just name the topic, and we'll tell you how to think about it.

 

Makes me so tired.

[MarkW]

Wedge issues are how we're all kept in line while the people with the actual political influence (lots of dollars) do whatever they want. Polarization is good when you want a perpetual overclass in charge of everything.

 

Hey let's discuss the TPP next.

[Corraleno]

He's not a Muslim. The extreme right-wing websites are trying to claim he is because he has a myspace page and one of his friends is Muslim, which is about the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.  And trying to claim that a nut who hated all religion is actually a Muslim trying to murder Christians is dangerous and irresponsible, and the media outlets pushing this should be ashamed of themselves.

 

:iagree:

 

Maybe the reason the extreme right-wing websites are falsely claiming he's a Muslim is to deflect attention from the fact that the shooter self-identified as a conservative Republican gun nut. Pretending he was Muslim, knowing that many of the people who read those websites would not question the lies, makes the shooter into "one of them" instead of "one of us."

 

There is ZERO evidence anywhere that he was Muslim, and he explicitly stated in his social media profile that he hated all organized religion.

[unsinkable]

Where are the articles with the eyewitness statement from the Wiccan victim?

[Corraleno]

Where are the articles with the eyewitness statement from the Wiccan victim?

 

The Pagan woman was killed, her name is Kim Saltmarsh Dietz.

[Corraleno]

Yes, apparently he was targeting Christians.  Nary a peep about that though.  I suppose if it was another group of people the media would be all over that.  Sad to say, not surprised about that though.

 

From Tracy Hue's interview on CNN:

 

"Heu also said the gunman asked about religion. But she said it didn't seem to matter, because he shot some people even before he asked. "I don't think he was really targeting them," she said. "I honestly don't think he was targeting anybody. He just wanted to do it for fun. 'Cause he still shot every single one that he asked. So I don't think he was actually targeting a specific religion."

 

 

The New York Post has a good story on this.  Apparently, if you said you were a Christian then you were shot in the head, and if you said nothing or no then you were shot legs.  Sounds like he was singling out Christians to me.  

 

http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/oregon-gunman-singled-out-christians-during-rampage/

 

The ONLY source of that quote is a tweet from someone who said her grandmother told him that. Of the five survivors that we know where they were shot, three were shot in the back, chest, or abdomen, one was shot in the head, and one was shot in the hand. Boylan stated she was Christian and was shot in the back, her friend Cheyenne Fitzgerald didn't answer and was shot in the stomach.

 

Hue stated that only 3 people were able to walk out of the room — herself (shot in the hand), the guy named Matthew, to whom the shooter gave the flash drive to give to police, and I presume the 3rd was the grandmother that wasn't shot?

 

Anyway, he basically shot everyone in the room, regardless of religion.

 

[unsinkable]

The Pagan woman was killed, her name is Kim Saltmarsh Dietz.

Wiccan was the word that was used here so that is why I used it.

 

I haven't been able to find the previously referenced statement from the eyewitness who said he wasn't targeting Christians.

[SKL]

It seems to me that the undisputed fact that a self-described hater of religion asked his shooting victims about religion means he at least wanted to make it look like religion was one of his motivations.  To suggest the thing he asked his victims before shooting them is not relevant is quite a stretch IMO.

[Corraleno]

I haven't been able to find the previously referenced statement from the eyewitness who said he wasn't targeting Christians.

 

Tracy Hue was interviewed by CNN. The quote in my post above is from this article.

[poppy]

It seems to me that the undisputed fact that a self-described hater of religion asked his shooting victims about religion means he at least wanted to make it look like religion was one of his motivations. To suggest the thing he asked his victims before shooting them is not relevant is quite a stretch IMO.

 

Not if it didn't impact who he shot.

He was just terrorizing his victims for his own pleasure.

[Corraleno]

It seems to me that the undisputed fact that a self-described hater of religion asked his shooting victims about religion means he at least wanted to make it look like religion was one of his motivations.  To suggest the thing he asked his victims before shooting them is not relevant is quite a stretch IMO.

 

No one is claiming that the fact that he asked about religion was irrelevant. The point is that it seems that whether the victim was Christian or not — or even religious or not — was irrelevant to whether they were shot. It would appear more that he was just taunting the victims, along the line of "if you believe in God, you're gonna meet Him right now..."

 

Also, the fact that he asked about religion does not prove that the motivation for the shooting was religious. Officials who have seen the writings he left for the police mentioned his admiration for other mass shooters, and his frustration at not being able to find a girlfriend and being a virgin. Nothing about religion.

[SKL]

But he said what he said.  What he said at the time of killing and shortly before his own death - in any other scenario, this would be considered very important.  In fact, there is a hearsay exception for things people say shortly before they die.

 

I don't know what motivated the guy, but I don't understand why people don't want to just lay it out there and let it be.  "He said and did these things just before he shot the victims and himself."  Why the need to follow up with "but that doesn't mean anything"?  Was any of us inside his mind at the time he was pulling the trigger?

[MarkW]

Giving a nutcase this much credibility to forward a political narrative is... well... unfortunate behavior.

 

The guy was CRAZY. What difference does it make what he said? If he said he really hates athletic shoes and that's why he did it, would there be an uproar?

[SKL]

Giving a nutcase this much credibility to forward a political narrative is... well... unfortunate behavior.

 

The guy was CRAZY. What difference does it make what he said? If he said he really hates athletic shoes and that's why he did it, would there be an uproar?

 

If there is an "uproar" (and I don't think there is), it's because in other cases where other "crazy" people have shot people and said it was because they were Muslim or Jewish or whatever, it gets reported.  (Without the add-on, "but that doesn't mean anything because he's crazy.")  Even that guy who thought he was Batman or whoever had his statements reported.  So there is clearly different treatment here.  Hard to believe there was no bias involved in the different reporting.

 

[MarkW]

SKL, you're imagining a bias that simply doesn't exist. Or you watch too much FOX. Or both.

[SKL]

Of course it doesn't exist, I'm crazy, so don't pay any attention to anything I say.

[Corraleno]

If there is an "uproar" (and I don't think there is), it's because in other cases where other "crazy" people have shot people and said it was because they were Muslim or Jewish or whatever, it gets reported.  (Without the add-on, "but that doesn't mean anything because he's crazy.")  Even that guy who thought he was Batman or whoever had his statements reported.  So there is clearly different treatment here.  Hard to believe there was no bias involved in the different reporting.

 

 

I'm sorry but the bolded is total BS.

 

EVERY news report has mentioned that the shooter asked about religion. The claim that the killer was "shooting Christians in the head and others in the legs" was widely reported, despite the fact that it was a uncorroborated 2nd-hand account from someone who said his grandmother told him that. The claim that the shooter was specifically asking if people were Christians before shooting them [just the Christians] was also widely reported although it was, again, a 2nd-hand statement from a man who said his daughter told him that.

 

We now know, from actual eyewitness statements and casualty reports, that:

 

(1) he basically shot everyone in the room, regardless of religion

(2) some people were shot without being asked their religion

(3) some people were shot who were asked but did not answer

(4) at least one person who was killed was a pagan

(5) there is no evidence that he was shooting people in the head or legs based on religion

 

So, despite the fact that there is no actual evidence that he was either specifically targeting Christians, or that he spared people who were not Christian, it was widely reported in the media that he was targeting Christians, based on two uncorroborated 2nd-hand reports.

 

How on earth does that equate to "media bias" against reporting the gunman's alleged statements about religion???

[SKL]

I don't think you can say "there is no evidence ____" unless you have personally seen ALL of the evidence.

[MarkW]

There is no available evidence. That is the way primary source verification works. You back up your claims with primary sources, or else they are invalid claims. Thank goodness our legal system doesn't work based upon what might be true since nobody is omnipotent, or we'd all be in big trouble.

[poppy]

Yeah, his asking about religion has been very widely reported.

The fact that his mom was an open carry advocate who bragged about her many assault weapons has not been.
Which do you think is more relevant to the people who were murdered?  That he said mean things or that he had weapons that enabled him to kill a whole lot of people horribly, quickly, at minimal risk to himself?