Tuesday, October 6, 2015

More on the Oregon School Shooting

New Trajectory

What followed was a flurry of activity, repeated every time we have a mass shooting (which is more than once a day in America now -- yes, you read that correctly!).  There was initial shock, followed by varying news reports and chaotic trickling of information. Then there was outrage from the community and those of us who fight gun violence.  Next came the slow release of factual information, and statements from politicians.  This time some called for change, like President Obama.  Each mass shooting brings more public voices like his.  This was the 15th time he has had to come on to national TV and address another mass shooting.
And then came the usual parade of pro-gun comments about how the faculty and students should have armed themselves, and fluttering about "gun free zones."

Well, it turns out that there was at least one student who had a concealed handgun and permit, a vet named John Parker, Jr.  After considering whether to engage the shooter, he decided it would be wisest not to, for fear the deputies would mistake him for the shooter.  See a news interview with him, HERE.  I don't approve of having guns on campus other than in the hands of well-trained law enforcement or security, but he was in his state rights to do so.  I'm glad he chose not to play a vigilante hero and get himself killed.

And, surprise, Umpqua Community College wasn't a "gun free zone," either!  Umpqua Community College has a policy that firearms and ammo are forbidden unless expressly authorized by law, which would allow conceal carry with a valid permit since state law allows conceal carry on state campuses unless the institution disallows that, too (such as the University of Oregon).

It should also be pointed out that the pro-gun myth that gunmen target places specifically because they are "gun free zones" has been debunked many times.  From a Mother Jones article:

Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. ... 
No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way.
 
A number of things kept the massacre from being worse:  deputies arrived within just six minutes of the first 911 calls to shoot out with the shooter; the school had practiced active-shooter emergency response just a week before; faculty followed the rules and locked doors and took shelter; and a real hero stepped in to confront the shooter.  Chris Mintz was shot multiple times, but he will survive, and he bought a lot of time for others to escape and for law enforcement to arrive.

But having a student with a gun didn't solve any problems in this shooting.  Having a conceal carry vigilante shoot it out with the assailant very well may have led to bystanders getting killed or confusion by law enforcement. 

But the gun lobby, gun sellers, and their minions are happy to keep feeding us the myths of the conceal carry hero and "gun free zones" to stoke the fears of those who care more about emotional responses than the facts.

7 comments:

  1. I smell poopy caca.
    First we read: ...:every time we have a mass shooting (which is more than once a day in America now -- yes, you read that correctly!)
    Second, a little farther down we read:...Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years

    That is quite a huge difference. Is it more than 1 a day or an average of 2 every year?
    I, for one, will disregard the entire smelly article.

    orlin sellers



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Baldr was referring to two different sources. The every day one is quite recent. The other one is a year or two ago. Maybe they used different criteria for determining what constitutes a mass shooting.

      Rather than disregarding the whole thing, which sounds like a cop out, what do you think about the old bullshit that these crazy shooters are attracted to gun free zones and all (or almost all) mass shootings therefore take place at gun free zones?

      Delete
    2. The majority of mass shootings do happen in gun free zones, and this shooting did happen in a gun free zone.


      So I hope that the parents of all the victims sue the college into bankruptcy, since they are absolutely at fault for creating the situation, where the law abiding were unable to defend themselves.

      Can we say class action lawsuit... Good I knew you could!

      Delete
  2. Ah, we can always count on Baldr to come late to the party. A lot of this stuff we've already discussed,

    "Next came the slow release of factual information, and statements from politicians. This time some called for change, like President Obama."

    Unfortunately, the politicians never seem to wait to make their statements till after the facts come out. And its been done so often, it has ceased to be a surprise when they turn out to be wrong.

    "Umpqua Community College has a policy that firearms and ammo are forbidden unless expressly authorized by law, which would allow conceal carry with a valid permit since state law allows conceal carry on state campuses unless the institution disallows that, too (such as the University of Oregon)".

    We talked about this as well, interesting that Baldr cites the student code of conduct which says this,

    "19.Possession or use, without written authorization, of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals, substances, or any other weapons or destructive devices that are designed to or readily capable of causing physical injury, on College premises, at College-sponsored or supervised functions or at functions sponsored or participated in by the College."

    And the safety and security section says this. All in all, in truth it seems contradictory and many would likely choose not to avoid the potential administrative punishments. Now that things are cleared up, perhaps there will be a higher level of permit holders carrying.

    " and a real hero stepped in to confront the shooter.
    Having a conceal carry vigilante shoot it out with the assailant very well may have led to bystanders getting killed or confusion by law enforcement. "

    We talked about this too. Mr. Mintz appeared to meet the shooter at the so the chances of innocents being harmed would be minimized. As I had said before, perhaps as time goes by, we'll find out that he had a carry permit. I'm willing to be though that being a trained infantryman, he would have rather have had a firearm to stop the threat.
    Someone else mentioned recently that the folks who disagree with permitted carry often seem almost disappointed when a permit holder doesn't cause multiple casualties of innocents as we've seen happen with the NYPD.






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It sounds like you're ignoring the real point too. Mass shootings don't only happen at gun free zones.

      Delete
    2. I never suggested that it Mike. We've discussed that before.

      Delete
    3. I don't think anybody said they didn't Mike. But the majority does happen in the gun free zones and only because there are just so many of them. Those zones are in Texas too, just not so many as a lot of places.

      Delete