ANOTHER SCHOOL/PUBLIC SHOOTING

[HairOfTheDog]

Profile of Umpqua Community College (Oregon) Killer -- from Police Reports, the Pentagon, and the Sheriff's Office

-The Pentagon confirmed today that the shooter is yet another one who joined the Army and was rejected. He attended training for a little over a month at Ft. Jackson, South Carolina, in 2008 but was discharged for failing to meet the minimum standards.

-He had attended a high school for special ed kids in Southern California and his mother, a nurse, indicated in reports that her son suffered from Asperger's Syndrome and mental issues.

-He left a manifesto, which hasn't been released to the public. In it, he reportedly complains about not having a life, not having a girlfriend, and the world being against him.

-Wounded victims told investigators that the shooter asked them to stand up in class and state their religion. He then shot the Christians after telling them they'd see God soon.

- The Sheriff's Office confirmed that he was carrying a semi-automatic rifle and five pistols during his attack at the college. This included a 9mm Glock pistol and a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson, which were both traced back to the deranged shooter. He also had a .40-caliber Taurus pistol listed as being owned by someone in Portland and a .556-caliber Del-Ton, as well as five more ammo magazines and a steel-plated flak jacket, according to the official firearms report.

-After searching the apartment he shared with his mom, police confirmed that the gunman had access to 13 weapons in total, all owned legally and purchased by him or family members.

I'm not blaming his mother or his family members for his actions, but it is frustrating to hear of yet another mass-murderer whose family was painfully aware that he was not right in the head and afforded him access to many weapons anyway.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

Jesus.... I thought that would be the deal. That guy looked like a nutfuck. No amount of background checking would have caught it. Probably some more detail in the existing laws defining who is a nut so they can be eliminated. Won't get all of them, but it would stop the legal sales to them.

[Love Child]

I think you have 2 of the names mixed up HotD.

Lawrence Levine, 67;

Sarena Dawn Moore, 44;

[Midwest Spy]

Jesus.... I thought that would be the deal. That guy looked like a nutfuck. No amount of background checking would have caught it. Probably some more detail in the existing laws defining who is a nut so they can be eliminated. Won't get all of them, but it would stop the legal sales to them.

Yep, and every time one of these nutfucks goes off, it inspires the next one.

A never ending cycle of nutfucks taking out normal people, and the guns make it all so simple.

[Maggot]

Do you think everyone should have their guns taken?

[HairOfTheDog]

I think you have 2 of the names mixed up HotD.

Lawrence Levine, 67;

Sarena Dawn Moore, 44;

Thanks Love Child.

It's correct; it's labeled clockwise. But, it's probably better presented this way.



Victims

Top row (left to right):
Rebecka Ann Carnes, 18;
Lucero Alcaraz, 19;
Kim Saltmarsh Dietz, 59;
and Treven Taylor Anspach, 20.

Bottom row (left to right):
Jason Dale Johnson, 33;
Sarena Dawn Moore, 44;
Quinn Glen Cooper, 18;
(Professor) Lawrence Levine, 67;
and Lucas Eibel, 18.

[Midwest Spy]

Do you think everyone should have their guns taken?

I don't know Maggot, what do you think?

Is this just 'shit happens'?

Are people that don't own guns just frickin' crazy because we don't understNd the love affair with guns?

You tell me please.

[username]

Do you think everyone should have their guns taken?

Certain weapons, absolutely. Semi-automatics and such. As for other guns, I think the process for obtaining one ought to be much more rigorous. Background checks, perhaps a waiting period and, for the stupid, a gun safety and law handbook/test similar to a driver's test.

It's all pointless though unless it happens on a national level.

[Maggot]

Ted Bundy....never used a gun. The killer clown John Wayne Gacy....never used a gun. Jeffery Dahmer....never used a gun. Crazy is crazy.

[HairOfTheDog]

Ted Bundy....never used a gun. The killer clown John Wayne Gacy....never used a gun. Jeffery Dahmer....never used a gun. Crazy is crazy.

That's true; not all crazy killers use guns.

But...Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and Jeffrey Dahmer weren't mass murderers, they were serial killers. Big pathological difference.

The serial killers you mentioned were committed and passionate about killing. They targeted familiar individual victims or victim-types. They got personal/sexual gratification from each kill, and they selected their victims specifically to maximize that gratification. They wanted to elude discovery/capture by law enforcement; they wanted to live beyond each sexual assault/murder in order to be able to do/feel it again. They weren't lazy killers (I don't say that with admiration, but as a matter of fact). No guns necessary.

Lanza, Rodger, Roof, Mercer -- on the hugely significant other hand -- were compelled to kill as many people as possible in a single incident because they were dissatisfied with life, felt angry and bitter with strangers about their own insignificance, had mental health issues... Such murderers sometimes plot their attacks, but they are lazy killers execution-wise and they rarely expect/attempt to elude capture or strike again. They're single-incident, suicidal/homicidal, mass murderers (not serial killers). They want or expect to be caught or taken down; they crave the notoriety. Guns almost always required and part of the thrill.

Without easy access to easy-to-use guns and ammo, many of those inclined to commit mass murder might not ever have enough intelligence or determination to carry out their fantasies. And, certainly, they could never take out as many people in 10 minutes with easily accessible and easy-to-use knives or baseball bats as they can with semi-automatic high capacity rifles, pistols, or even long guns (for which there is no minimum age limit in the U.S., currently).

Bombs and arson are most often too unattractive and difficult for such mass murderers. No other weapon ensures the multiple-victim, high death count, and immediate kill-gratification that guns provide for these types of killers. I don't think that's even debatable from a common-sense perspective, especially if you look at history and statistics.

So, smart gun control/regulation wouldn't likely affect serial killings much, but might well help reduce mass murders.

I don't want to take everybody's guns, by the way. I'm not an advocate for gun-type bans at this point either.

[Duchess]

It's not the guns, it's the people. Do something about all the crazies walking free. There's nothing wrong with locking away those who shouldn't be in society. This isn't going away. They, whoever they are, will never create a database filled with those who are unhinged.

[Duchess]

I read about some of the people who were killed and it made me all weepy and stuff. It's maddening that this keeps happening and I've noticed some news organizations have began to not report the shooter's name. I can see a time when more and more media outlets will begin to follow suit.

[HairOfTheDog]

It's not the guns, it's the people. Do something about all the crazies walking free. There's nothing wrong with locking away those who shouldn't be in society. This isn't going away. They, whoever they are, will never create a database filled with those who are unhinged.

It's the guns in the hands of unhinged people in most public mass murders.

There's a mental illness database already in the federal NICS background checking system. It keeps some people with documented mental health issues from purchasing guns.

But, most states don't provide mental illness records to the national system administrators, citing privacy issues. And, many mentally ill people are not documented as being so. Plus, some people lose their shit without necessarily being crazy.

Anyway, I think deeper background checks and national reporting requirements for all states would help. But the personal privacy vs. societal safety issue is a divisive one which is always hotly debated.

[Duchess]

personal privacy vs. societal safety issue is a divisive one which is always hotly debated.

Can you foresee a time when privacy laws are overridden for the sake of the safety of society as a whole? I don't feel as steadfast about this as I did at one time, all of the murders have slowly but surely changed my opinion about that.

[HairOfTheDog]

The Investigation and Shooter's Manner of Death -- Umpqua College Shooting

The shooter was not killed by police. He exchanged gunfire with officers while running off and then shot himself to death, the state medical examiner confirmed yesterday.


Douglas County Sheriff Hanlin ^ previously indicated that the shooter was shot and killed by police officers. He still refuses to say Mercer's name publicly and says his department's focus is on the victims and families.

I understand the Sheriff's positions. And Douglas County is a very conservative speck in an otherwise very liberal state; his strong conservative views probably reflect the views of the people who elected him.

However, I personally think less of Hanlin for having gone straight into hyper defensive "they're gonna take all our guns!" mode right after 26 school children and teachers were murdered at the Sandy Hook school. Hanlin wrote a letter to VP Biden warning that he and a group of ultra-conservative law enforcement officers wouldn't follow any new gun control laws or anything that interfered with his interpretation of the second amendment.

He also pondered and posted one of those batshit "truther" videos (which claims that Sandy Hook was a hoax / conspiracy by the feds in order to disarm the public).

I sure hope Sheriff Hanlin truly has more respect for the massacre victims in his own jurisdiction than he did for the Sandy Hook massacre victims and their families; they deserve a rational and professional investigation.

Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/us/ore....html?_r=0

[HairOfTheDog]

personal privacy vs. societal safety issue is a divisive one which is always hotly debated.

Can you foresee a time when privacy laws are overridden for the sake of the safety of society as a whole? I don't feel as steadfast about this as I did at one time, all of the murders have slowly but surely changed my opinion about that.

Yeah, I think it's possible when it comes to NICS reporting, with safeguards guaranteeing that the mental illness records would be used for gun safety/control purposes only.

I can't foresee Congress passing such a national law/regulation anytime soon, but a Supreme Court decision ruling that such reporting is consistent with the "well regulated" portion of the second amendment could do the trick.

[Maggot]

Why would CNN change the shooters appearance?

A better picture.

Why would CNN do that?

[username]

That's weird, Maggot.

It IS guns in the wrong hands. As HotD stated up thread, these people simply could not inflict this level of damage that quickly with a knife or baseball bat.

[username]

I was just reading that the shooter was pegged initially as a white supremacist so his mixed race didn't fit the narrative.

[HairOfTheDog]

Where did you see/hear that CNN lightened his photo, Maggot?

I never saw the lightened photo on CNN's pages and saw only the original photo of Mercer in the red shirt with the gun on CNN tv when he was first identified.

Some of his posts stated that he hated organized religion, he was a satanist, he disagreed with the Black Lives Matters movement in most cases, etc... I understand that his social media and internet activity includes some references to Nazis, the Irish Republican Army, etc. I don't know if there's something in his unreleased manifesto connecting those mere references to white supremacist views; if not, it's a pretty big leap to label him as such based on that alone - in my opinion.

Sheriff Hanlin confirmed yesterday that Mercer was enrolled in the class where he first started shooting, along with another class at Umpqua College.