Oregon community college shooting

[Lang Syne Boardie]

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.

 

I think you mean omnipresent?

[SKL]

What I think was most relevant to the people who were murdered was what happened to them before they lost consciousness.

 

I have heard the reports about the mom being a gun owner and open carry advocate.  That is not directly relevant, but yeah, it's been reported.  I guess it's like reporting that a murderer of children had a parent who was pro-abortion.  Which would of course (rightly) never happen.

[poppy]

What I think was most relevant to the people who were murdered was what happened to them before they lost consciousness.

 

You mean being shot to death?

 

How he was raised in feeling about weapons is not irrelevant.  He was a young man with a stockpile of legally purchased guns which he used to kill ten people. 

This is when someone always replies "he could have used a knife, or a car, or a bomb".  He didn't.  Mass knife murder sprees are not a thing.

[MarkW]

I think you mean omnipresent?

 

I think one implies the other. Omnipresent is more specific but is certainly not excluded in omnipotence. Not sure this contributes much and is pretty much just semantics.

[MarkW]

What I think was most relevant to the people who were murdered was what happened to them before they lost consciousness.

 

I have heard the reports about the mom being a gun owner and open carry advocate.  That is not directly relevant, but yeah, it's been reported.  I guess it's like reporting that a murderer of children had a parent who was pro-abortion.  Which would of course (rightly) never happen.

 

This is incredibly, absurdly selective thinking.

[SKL]

You mean being shot to death?

 

How he was raised in feeling about weapons is not irrelevant.  He was a young man with a stockpile of legally purchased guns which he used to kill ten people. 

 

Do we know that the guns he used were his mother's guns?  I know they confiscated her guns (and his), but I didn't see where they say any of them were the murder weapons.

 

He was 26yo.

 

I was raised in a house with lots of legally purchased guns.  So were many millions of Americans who have no violent tendencies whatsoever.

 

Besides that, I'm betting that some of the past multiple murderers were NOT raised in a house full of legally purchased guns.

 

So no, I don't think that was what the victims were concerned about at that moment.  Of course I could be wrong.

[poppy]

Nope, the guns were legally purchased by the murderer.  Like just about anyone who wants to be a mass murderer, he had easy and legal access to many, many firearms.

 

 

 

Besides that, I'm betting that some of the past multiple murderers were NOT raised in a house full of legally purchased guns.

 

Past multiple murders probably did NOT ask their victims about religion. If that's relevant, so is the gun nut aspect.

 

 

[Corraleno]

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

 

Huh, so if the only "evidence" that the killer was "shooting Christians in the head and nonChristians in the legs" is a TWEET from someone claiming that her grandmother was there and told her that, while refusing to provide any back up for the story, that counts as "evidence"?

 

But the fact that two eyewitnesses have given different accounts, and we know for a fact that at least 4 of the survivors were shot in other other places, whether they were Christian or not, does not count as evidence?

 

The woman whose father was the source of the claim that the shooter was asking people if they were Christian and shooting the Christians CONTRADICTED that in her own interview, saying that he indicated he planned to kill everyone in the room, including himself, except for one guy he singled out to give his "manifesto" to the police. She said that he asked people to stand up and state their religion and he said that if you believe in God  you'll only feel pain for a minute and then you'll be with God. She did NOT say, at any point, that he was only shooting Christians or sparing others. She is a Christian and she was shot in the back. Her friend did not answer and was shot in the stomach.

[Retired]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/us/oregon-umpqua-shooting-survivor/

 

Eye witness not second hand information confirms that the shooter did ask is they were chrisitan catholic

[ChocolateReignRemix]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/us/oregon-umpqua-shooting-survivor/

 

Eye witness not second hand information confirms that the shooter did ask is they were chrisitan catholic

 

And this part is important (from your link):

 

Each time someone stood, Heu said, he or she was shot regardless of the answer.

"I don't think he was actually targeting a specific religion," she said. "He just wanted to do it for fun, 'cause he still shot every single one. He started shooting people before even asking."

[Corraleno]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/us/oregon-umpqua-shooting-survivor/

 

Eye witness not second hand information confirms that the shooter did ask is they were chrisitan catholic

 

Yes, and the same eyewitness says:

"Each time someone stood, Heu said, he or she was shot regardless of the answer."

 

He was not asking in order to kill Christians and spare others. He was telling the Christians that they would see God soon.

[SKL]

Huh, so if the only "evidence" that the killer was "shooting Christians in the head and nonChristians in the legs" is a TWEET from someone claiming that her grandmother was there and told her that, while refusing to provide any back up for the story, that counts as "evidence"?

 

But the fact that two eyewitnesses have given different accounts, and we know for a fact that at least 4 of the survivors were shot in other other places, whether they were Christian or not, does not count as evidence?

 

The woman whose father was the source of the claim that the shooter was asking people if they were Christian and shooting the Christians did NOT say that in her own interview. She said that he asked people to stand up and state their religion and he said that if you believe in God  you'll only feel pain for a minute and then you'll be with God. She did NOT say, at any point, that he was only shooting Christians or sparing others. She is a Christian and she was shot in the back. Her friend did not answer and was shot in the stomach.

 

I am sure there is a lot of evidence that none of us has seen or heard.  Because we don't have access to the crime scene or all of the victims' / witnesses' memories.

 

Like I said, I don't know what motivated the guy, but I find it odd that some people are insisting that what he actually said at the time was something we should completely dismiss.  Why not let each person decide for ourselves what we think is important out of what we have heard so far?

[Chess Dad]

You mean being shot to death?

 

How he was raised in feeling about weapons is not irrelevant.  He was a young man with a stockpile of legally purchased guns which he used to kill ten people. 

This is when someone always replies "he could have used a knife, or a car, or a bomb".  He didn't.  Mass knife murder sprees are not a thing.

 

Uh, mass knife murders do happen.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/mass-murder-by-knife-at-least-27-dead-after-violent-mobs-attack-police-others-in-west-china/

 

Just saying...

 

:patriot:

[SKL]

Nope, the guns were legally purchased by the murderer.  Like just about anyone who wants to be a mass murderer, he had easy and legal access to many, many firearms.

 

 

 

 

Past multiple murders probably did NOT ask their victims about religion. If that's relevant, so is the gun nut aspect.

 

No, you asked me what the people being shot cared about at the time.  I answered, what was happening to them up to the point where they lost consciousness (or got rescued).  It is not relevant that past people did or didn't ask about religion, but since it actually happened to these people, yeah, I think that was relevant to them, even if it was more an act of terror than a matter of life or death from the shooter's perspective (which we don't know yet).

 

At least one source said the shooter shot religious people in the head and others in the legs.  I don't know if that was factually true or not in the time and place that witness was there.  But I do know that shooting someone in the head is more likely to lead to death than shooting them in the legs.  Why not shoot everyone in the head?  Why not shoot everyone in the legs?  It might be relevant.  We don't know enough facts yet - and maybe we never will.

 

What we know about this situation is surely the tip of the iceberg.  Yet within hours of the gunshots, it seems much of America had formed a solid opinion about what happened and why.  Why do we do this?  It happens with everything that makes big news.  After a short window of time, further questions or theories or open-mindedness are not allowed.

[Corraleno]

At least one source said the shooter shot religious people in the head and others in the legs.  I don't know if that was factually true or not in the time and place that witness was there.  But I do know that shooting someone in the head is more likely to lead to death than shooting them in the legs.  Why not shoot everyone in the head?  Why not shoot everyone in the legs?  It might be relevant.  We don't know enough facts yet - and maybe we never will.

 

That "source" you keep referring to was not a witness — it is a TWEET from an anonymous person who claims her grandmother was there. There has been ZERO corroboration for that "source." Why do you keep citing this totally unconfirmed rumor as if it's a fact?

 

The other 2nd-hand report that the shooter was specifically targeting Christians has been refuted by the source's own daughter, who is a survivor.

 

We do know for a fact that four of the survivors were shot in the back, stomach, chest, or hand, not the head or legs. One survivor was shot in the head; there is no information as to her religion. The only confirmed report of someone being shot in the legs was the guy who tried to stop the gunman, who was first shot in the back and abdomen, and then later shot in the legs after he said it was his son's birthday — nothing to do with religion.

 

If you're going to harp on the importance of "facts," maybe you should make sure you're reporting actual facts, rather than repeating totally unsubstantiated rumors and 2nd-hand reports that have been refuted by the actual eyewitnesses.

[MarkW]

This is what corporate owned media has trained Americans to do: maintain cognitive dissonance at all costs. Just filter out whatever doesn't fit the narrative, and maintain a finely bounded set of double standards for self justification.

[SKL]

That "source" you keep referring to was not a witness — it is a TWEET from an anonymous person who claims her grandmother was there. There has been ZERO corroboration for that "source." Why do you keep citing this totally unconfirmed rumor as if it's a fact?

 

The other 2nd-hand report that the shooter was specifically targeting Christians has been refuted by the source's own daughter, who is a survivor.

 

We do know for a fact that four of the survivors were shot in the back, stomach, chest, or hand, not the head or legs. One survivor was shot in the head; there is no information as to her religion. The only confirmed report of someone being shot in the legs was the guy who tried to stop the gunman, who was first shot in the back and abdomen, and then later shot in the legs after he said it was his son's birthday — nothing to do with religion.

 

If you're going to harp on the importance of "facts," maybe you should make sure you're reporting actual facts, rather than repeating totally unsubstantiated rumors and 2nd-hand reports that have been refuted by the actual eyewitnesses.

 

Unlike some people, I specifically said I don't know if that is a "fact" and that only one person reported it that way.  However, it was one of the early reports and we certainly do NOT know all the facts, not even close.  We should keep an open mind about things we do not know for sure. 

 

While there may be no specific corroboration (that we know of) regarding the head / legs connection that one person supposedly made, there is corroboration that he asked about religion before shooting some number of victims, and so the source seems to have some level of credibility.  I don't know the timing to know which reports came first etc.  Now it could be that the person who made that claim only saw 2 people being shot and that was just a connection she made.  I don't know.  I never claimed to know how it went down.

[MarkW]

For not knowing it you sure are rigorously defending the point that it could be the case, or whatever. It's sort of hazy what you're getting at except that you seem to have a strong need to imply that the shooter was a Muslim or at least anti-Christian.

[SKL]

For not knowing it you sure are rigorously defending the point that it could be the case, or whatever. It's sort of hazy what you're getting at except that you seem to have a strong need to imply that the shooter was a Muslim or at least anti-Christian.

 

If you look back at my posts, you will notice I never said anything about him being Muslim or anti-Christian.  I don't think we know what his true beliefs were (if he was sane enough to have legitimate religious beliefs at all).  I haven't heard of any evidence that he was part of a Muslim or Atheist plot.  I am capable of filtering the extreme, unsupported claims from both "sides."

 

I just don't like people trying to filter information for other people.  We should all be smart enough to hear reports and evaluate and weigh them for ourselves.

[SKL]

See, I learned a lot from the Trayvon Martin case - I foolishly believed the doctored 911 call where they made it sound like the caller targeted Trayvon because he was black.  I heard it directly from his mouth to my ears, so how could it not be true?  Well.  Now I wait a lot longer before I accept anyone's interpretation of "evidence."  I want to know what was said, but I don't necessarily believe anyone without a lot more.

[Corraleno]

While there may be no specific corroboration (that we know of) regarding the head / legs connection that one person supposedly made, there is corroboration that he asked about religion before shooting some number of victims, and so the source seems to have some level of credibility.  I don't know the timing to know which reports came first etc.  Now it could be that the person who made that claim only saw 2 people being shot and that was just a connection she made.  I don't know.  I never claimed to know how it went down.

 

OMG for the umpteenth time, the "person" who made that "claim" DID NOT SEE ANYONE GET SHOT!

 

It was a TWEET from someone who claimed a relative was there. It was NOT an eyewitness account. The alleged grandmother who allegedly told this to the anonymous source who tweeted it has not said this at all!

 

Another survivor who was actually there, Rand McGowan, has confirmed all the other eyewitness accounts so far that the gunman was NOT targeting Christians. And he was shot in the hand, not the head or legs, so there's another fact that totally contradicts the scenario alleged in the anonymous tweet. 

 

 McGowan was inside the Snyder Hall classroom when Mercer walked through the door about 35 minutes into the class and casually opened fire.  The heavily armed killer first huddled the students together and then starting singling them out for death while asking about their faith. Despite reports to the contrary, McGowan said Mercer didn’t appear to target Christians in particular. “He didn’t really, honestly,†McGowan said in a quiet voice.

[mathnerd]

 

Another survivor who was actually there, Rand McGowan, has confirmed all the other eyewitness accounts so far that the gunman was NOT targeting Christians. And he was shot in the hand, not the head or legs, so there's another fact that totally contradicts the scenario alleged in the anonymous tweet. 

 

 

:iagree:  I too read the accounts of Rand McGowan who said that christians were not targeted. One of the relatives of this survivor said that the killer only mentioned that in case the victim believed in God, then, they will meet with their God in a few seconds before he shot them. The killer also said that he was going to join the victims soon (i.e. he was planning to commit suicide).

[Corraleno]

The "grandmother" referred to by the person who tweeted the comment about Christians being shot in the head and others shot in the legs is, according to her daughter, Sharon Kirkham. 

 

Sharon Kirkham was NOT in the room where the shooting happened, she was in the classroom next door throughout the ordeal. Kim Dietz, who was in also in Kirkham's class, went to see what was happening and came back into the classroom after having been shot. Then Kirkham says the door opened and Chris Mintz blocked the shooter from entering and was shot multiple times. Chris Mintz is the ONLY person she saw being shot. In the interview she did with ABC, she mentioned that after the shooting was over she helped a girl who had been wounded in the leg.

 

At NO POINT in the interview does she say ANYTHING about the gunman shooting Christians in the head and others in the legs. 

 

So both of the claims that he was "specifically targeting Christians" not only came from secondary sources, the claims were NOT confirmed by the people who supposedly had made them, and they have been refuted by multiple eyewitnesses.

 

Boylan's father also gave the press other erroneous information, including that the shooter had given a student "a box" to give police; eyewitnesses, including Boylan's daughter, say it was an envelope. But of course there are conspiracy nuts on various blogs and websites demanding to know why the police are hiding this "box." 

[poppy]

I am sure there is a lot of evidence that none of us has seen or heard.  Because we don't have access to the crime scene or all of the victims' / witnesses' memories.

 

Like I said, I don't know what motivated the guy, but I find it odd that some people are insisting that what he actually said at the time was something we should completely dismiss.  Why not let each person decide for ourselves what we think is important out of what we have heard so far?

 

Each person is completely free to decide what is important. You have made your decision, and others have made theirs.   DONE!

[Corraleno]

It's hard to decide for oneself what the most important facts are, though, when the media reports unsubstantiated 2nd-hand accounts that turn out to be totally untrue.  :glare:

[Word Nerd]

It's hard to decide for oneself what the most important facts are, though, when the media reports unsubstantiated 2nd-hand accounts that turn out to be totally untrue.  :glare:

 

Which leads to people attributing to conspiracy what should be attributed to sloppy reporting.

[SKL]

Again, we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of facts.  There have been a couple interviews, but there are more people who were witnesses who have not been heard on our favorite news channels.  And I would also note that what the news channels report / play frequently don't reflect the entirety of what the chosen interviewees intended to convey.

 

But all this is obvious to everyone.  We don't know what we don't know.  And often, what we don't know is important stuff.

 

As for conspiracy theories, I didn't notice anyone proposing those.

[MarkW]

You spent quite a few posts assuming/implying that he is/was a Muslim on an anti-Christian rampage, IIRC. I guess I have a reading problem or you've done some editing. You haven't been as neutral in your commentary as this all along. 

[SKL]

You spent quite a few posts assuming/implying that he is/was a Muslim on an anti-Christian rampage, IIRC. I guess I have a reading problem or you've done some editing. You haven't been as neutral in your commentary as this all along. 

 

You must be confusing me with someone else, because I did no such thing.

 

[justasque]

It's hard to decide for oneself what the most important facts are, though, when the media reports unsubstantiated 2nd-hand accounts that turn out to be totally untrue.  :glare:

 

True.  But that's why it's important to engage in critical reading (or listening) regarding news stories, especially those that are still evolving.  It helps to ask - where an I getting this information?  Where is the author getting the information?  Is this a credible source?  Which of this info is a primary source (in this case, an eyewitness account, ideally full and in context rather than selected snippets)?  Which is opinion?  Which is speculation?  Who is the source, and what is their interest in the story - that is, are they trying to fit the story into a larger narrative (e.g. persecution of Christians, persecution of Muslims, etc.)? 

 

You can read things that may be non-primary sources, opinion, or speculation, just be sure that you are identifying them as such, and putting them into your mental story/memory as such.  Then be careful not to pass them on as if they are accurate information.

[Word Nerd]

Again, we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of facts. There have been a couple interviews, but there are more people who were witnesses who have not been heard on our favorite news channels. And I would also note that what the news channels report / play frequently don't reflect the entirety of what the chosen interviewees intended to convey.

 

But all this is obvious to everyone. We don't know what we don't know. And often, what we don't know is important stuff.

 

As for conspiracy theories, I didn't notice anyone proposing those.

I meant in general, not in this thread. It happens almost every time there's a mass shooting (e.g., Sandy Hook was a training exercise and didn't really happen).

[Susan Wise Bauer]

If you can talk about the issue rather than each other, this thread can stay up; otherwise it's going away.

 

SWB

[Corraleno]

I meant in general, not in this thread. It happens almost every time there's a mass shooting (e.g., Sandy Hook was a training exercise and didn't really happen).

 

Ironically, the anti-gun-control sheriff in Oregon who is overseeing the Roseburg investigation is actually one of conspiracy theory nutters:

 

The New York Times reports that shortly after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which resulted in the deaths of 28 children and adults, Hanlin shared a link on his own Facebook page of a video that “suggested that the shootings at Sandy Hook — and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — might have been staged by the federal government to provide a pretext for ‘disarming the public’ through gun control legislation.†He posted the link with the comment, “This makes me wonder who we can trust anymore.â€

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I meant in general, not in this thread. It happens almost every time there's a mass shooting (e.g., Sandy Hook was a training exercise and didn't really happen).

 

There are people out there who truly believes everything bad thing that happens is the work of the Illuminati/whoever.  It is amazing.

[purplejackmama]

There are people out there who truly believes everything bad thing that happens is the work of the Illuminati/whoever. It is amazing.

I have a family member in this camp. He's forever sending me emails about the dangers. Last week it was an FYI that JayZ and Beyoncé were out to get me. Mmmkay. Thanks for the heads up!!

[poppy]

Uh, mass knife murders do happen.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/mass-murder-by-knife-at-least-27-dead-after-violent-mobs-attack-police-others-in-west-china/

 

Just saying...

 

:patriot:

 

I didn't say they have never happened. But not nearly at the rate nor severity of firearm mass murders.  Which is why I completely dismiss the argument that the WEAPON is not an issue in mass murder. It's about guns, gun availability and gun culture.

 

[Butter]

Oh, goodness.  Certain sources (including Glenn Beck) are insisting this guy was "in contact with" ISIS and clearly had an ISIS flag on the table behind him in one picture.  Oh, and ISIS has taken responsibility for helping him, too, of course.  But you won't hear it anywhere else because the liberal media hides this information.  The picture, by the way, yeah, it could be an ISIS flag... or it could a t-shirt that is black with white writing/design.  But it must be ISIS because only Muslims commit mass murder for no reason.  Or something like that...

[SKL]

I didn't say they have never happened. But not nearly at the rate nor severity of firearm mass murders.  Which is why I completely dismiss the argument that the WEAPON is not an issue in mass murder. It's about guns, gun availability and gun culture.

 

 

No, it is not about "gun culture," unless you can point me to an identifiable large group of humans in the USA where random mass murders are considered positive.

 

Also, I am perplexed about the "rate" of firearm mass murders.  In this or related recent threads, I have seen wildly different statistics.  Can someone provide a reliable link to pertinent data?  Bonus points if it breaks the data down between random mass shootings like this one, vs. the far more common family murder-suicides and gang murders.

[MarkW]

The glorification and fetishization of firearms is what "gun culture" comprises, and it certainly exists. Guns are laid out in centerfolds like pornography. Men pose with their collections like rappers pose with a table filled with bundles of hundred dollar bills.

 

That can certainly be called "gun culture" without requiring that it consider mass murder a positive.

 

A gun is a tool. It shouldn't be a fetish. Making it into a fetish arguably contributes to the "glamor" that many Americans, not just the mentally ill, associate with guns and with weapons in general. It's disingenuous to pretend that this doesn't exist.

[MarkW]

Oh, goodness.  Certain sources (including Glenn Beck) are insisting this guy was "in contact with" ISIS and clearly had an ISIS flag on the table behind him in one picture.  Oh, and ISIS has taken responsibility for helping him, too, of course.  But you won't hear it anywhere else because the liberal media hides this information.  The picture, by the way, yeah, it could be an ISIS flag... or it could a t-shirt that is black with white writing/design.  But it must be ISIS because only Muslims commit mass murder for no reason.  Or something like that...

 

I saw that photo and it could be a stack of VHS tapes, a shadow, or an escaped alien from Area 51. I'm betting on the latter because the photo was so intensely grainy and impossible to discern that it would fit the theme wonderfully.

[poppy]

No, it is not about "gun culture," unless you can point me to an identifiable large group of humans in the USA where random mass murders are considered positive.

 

Also, I am perplexed about the "rate" of firearm mass murders.  In this or related recent threads, I have seen wildly different statistics.  Can someone provide a reliable link to pertinent data?  Bonus points if it breaks the data down between random mass shootings like this one, vs. the far more common family murder-suicides and gang murders.

 

This murderer had  (at least) 13 guns.  He came from a family where having lots of assualt weapons was something to  be proud of.   That's uniquely American.  That's gun culture.  And there is a price for it. 

 

There are way too many firearm mass murders.  I'm not going down a rabbit hole of statistics.  It's pointless.

 

Let's try and get it down to the rate of knife mass murders.  Which--- if I am to believe the previous PP -- is 2 in China, 1 in Japan, and 0 in the US.

[SKL]

This murderer had  (at least) 13 guns.  He came from a family where having lots of assualt weapons was something to  be proud of.   That's uniquely American.  That's gun culture.  And there is a price for it. 

 

There are way too many firearm mass murders.  I'm not going down a rabbit hole of statistics.  It's pointless.

 

Let's try and get it down to the rate of knife mass murders.  Which--- if I am to believe the previous PP -- is 2 in China, 1 in Japan, and 0 in the US.

 

Well, I did a little bit of research and it turns out the number of people killed in mass killing that don't involve guns was roughly a third of the number who were shot in mass killings.  The figures listed in your quote are far from accurate.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/10/03/mass-killers-use-other-weapons-besides-guns/73213860/

 

A list of mass murders of this nature can be found here.  Certainly not one daily, as suggested by one or more posts above.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

 

I would note that among the perps listed in the above link, many clearly did not grow up in the US "gun culture" that I grew up in, the one most law-abiding Americans view as part of our culture.

[poppy]

So in other words, guns kill 2/3 of the people who die in mass murders?  

 

The figures in my quote were not scientific stats. A previous poster tried to refute my claim that mass knivings are "not a thing" by giving example of mass murder by knife. She posted 3 stories: 2 in China and 1 in Japan.  All I can say is, if China and Japan had citizenry as heavily armed as we in the US are, there is not a question that the  number of mass murders in this world would be much higher.  Because the presence of firearms invariably leads to more firearm deaths, as described in a link I posted early. 

 

 

But like I said, I'm not going down the statistics rabbit hole. It's just another distraction (like "what did the killer say to his victims") that takes attention away from the real issue here.  Mass murders happen in the US, a lot, by people with legally purchased weapons.  And that is terrible.

[Corraleno]

Oh, goodness.  Certain sources (including Glenn Beck) are insisting this guy was "in contact with" ISIS and clearly had an ISIS flag on the table behind him in one picture.  Oh, and ISIS has taken responsibility for helping him, too, of course.  But you won't hear it anywhere else because the liberal media hides this information.  The picture, by the way, yeah, it could be an ISIS flag... or it could a t-shirt that is black with white writing/design.  But it must be ISIS because only Muslims commit mass murder for no reason.  Or something like that...

 

The shooter self-identified as a conservative Republican who hated organized religion, hero-worshipped mass killers, and whose mother, a vocal advocate of open carry laws, took her admittedly mentally ill son to the firing range to learn how to use assault rifles. But none of that is relevant, I guess, compared to some unidentified B&W object in a grainy photo.

 

Given the fact that conservative Republicans who hate organized religion are converting to Islamic fundamentalism in droves, I guess it's not surprising that Harper-Mercer was among them....   :001_rolleyes:

 

The abject, willful stupidity of some people in this country truly boggles my mind. It makes me think of a line from BlackAdder: "Baldrick, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?"  

[MarkW]

It's ridiculous to what extent people are willing to be the genesis of absurd propagandistic rumors they know will never be quenched because of that willful ignorance. Glenn Beck is a traitor at best because he is willfully sowing ethnic and religious hatred. He's a liar and an agitator.

 

It's sad that he can get so much traction in our society, though. It's sad that Americans are this ignorant and hateful and angry.

[SKL]

So in other words, guns kill 2/3 of the people who die in mass murders?  

 

The figures in my quote were not scientific stats. A previous poster tried to refute my claim that mass knivings are "not a thing" by giving example of mass murder by knife. She posted 3 stories: 2 in China and 1 in Japan.  All I can say is, if China and Japan had citizenry as heavily armed as we in the US are, there is not a question that the  number of mass murders in this world would be much higher.  Because the presence of firearms invariably leads to more firearm deaths, as described in a link I posted early. 

 

 

But like I said, I'm not going down the statistics rabbit hole. It's just another distraction (like "what did the killer say to his victims") that takes attention away from the real issue here.  Mass murders happen in the US, a lot, by people with legally purchased weapons.  And that is terrible.

 

You're not going to be distracted by the facts?  You think nationwide policy should be made without consulting facts?  OK, you are entitled to your opinion.

 

To have a conversation about gun control policy and its relation to these incidents, it is important to talk about reality.  Especially if you want to ever reach a concensus.

 

And to your first sentence, no actually it is closer to 3/4 of mass murder victims killed by gunshot vs. other weapons.  It is unknown how many of them would have died whether or not the killer had a gun.  The other 1/4 is not a tiny number either.  Both figures are dwarfed by the other murders that occur as a routine part of life in too many US cities, regardless of strict or lax gun control.  We have a problem (or probably many intersecting problems).  My family's non-assault type, legally owned, carefully stored guns are not the problem.

[MarkW]

*consensus

 

The homicide rate in the US dwarfs the homicide rate in most other countries with the exception of the third world. The vast majority of those homicides are committed with firearms. No other Western country fetishizes firearms to the degree that Americans do.

 

These are facts.

 

Nobody in this thread, to my knowledge, is arguing for a full ban, so your family's carefully stored firearms don't seem to be relevant to the issue, which is that there is lax gun control in the US, an unhealthy obsession with guns on the part of a substantial subculture in America, which included this killer and his mother, and clearly additional measures need to be in place.

 

Those are facts.

[poppy]

"My statistics vs your statistics" is the inevitable rabbit hole.  No thank you. 

 

Dead kids, again, because a nut had a gun. Again.

 

It's a tragedy.

 

We should do something to make fewer tragedies in the future.

[SKL]

 

The homicide rate in the US dwarfs the homicide rate in most other countries with the exception of the third world. The vast majority of those homicides are committed with firearms. No other Western country fetishizes firearms to the degree that Americans do.

 

Well unfortunately, like it or not, some parts of our cities bear too much resemblance to the violent parts of the third world.  And it's in these places where the majority of gun violence occurs.  It has nothing to do with the so-called "fetishes" of law-abiding citizens.

 

[MarkW]

Nobody lives in a vacuum. And if you think urban crime is unrelated to the glorification of gun violence... wow. That's totally divorced from reality.