Holy Christian Martyrs of Roseburg, Oregon…

Holy Christian Martyrs of Roseburg, Oregon… October 2, 2015

Pray for us and for the destruction of the Gun Cult enabled by the NRA that made this despicable act possible.

By the standards of the early Church, every person professing faith in Jesus Christ before that butcher is a martyr.

And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. (Re 12:10–11).

"I'm glad I read Matt Walsh's piece, even though it's nonsense, because I now understand ..."

Well done, Gillette!
"Simple. Lost sheep must come back or be damned to hellfire. We won't come get ..."

Stephen Lewis replies to the Voris ..."
"Maybe she could speak up for herself, White Knight."

Stephen Lewis replies to the Voris ..."
""Also, why not extend the same courtesy you suggest Mark should give Vigano, i.e., not ..."

Vigano Distracts–Again

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Joseph

    I’m a bit torn on this one. Even if the gun laws were as strict as those in Europe, he still would have been able to find a legal way to get a hold of a rifle (probably). Maybe he would have thought twice about his rampage if he was short 3 pistols. Who knows?
    But one thing is for sure, he had a fascination with paramilitary groups internationally understood as engaging in terrorist activity, he was, once again, an atheist, and he was also actively seeking the limelight that he knew he would get from the media based on how they covered other mass shooters.
    The media shares some of the blame here as does our society. And, obviously, atheist mass shootings rear their ugly head again except this time we have an atheist (anti-theist) who was a bit more intellectually honest with the choice of this targets.
    Yeah, stricter gun controls may prevent a large percentage of these events by removing the *easy* option for atheist cowards like these to carry out their murders, but I think we have to look deeper. The media and how they make these shooters and their atrocities infamous for political reasons are obviously making the problem worse.
    For example, one witness tweeted that there were shots fired. Just about every news agency tweeted her back to ask for an interview… while the shooting was taking place! Priorities are off here… completely. Those people are like the ambulance chasing lawyers. If there wasn’t some *reward* for getting the scoop on something like this (because, let’s face it, there’s a huge political award for it), then perhaps it would be less likely that someone like this shooter would act (given that he clearly was impressed by the fame of other mass shooters, who were also impressed by the fame of other mass shooters, so on and so forth).
    I think that consumers are to blame for it as well. I know this stuff is eventually coming to Europe. Kids like this who want to *go out in a blaze of glory* exist everywhere. When they see the massive amount of cover these stories get, they are definitely prodded on. Same thing with suicides. In Ireland, they started covering suicides sympathetically and constantly. What do you think began to happen? More suicides. The US has deeper issues than just guns, I’m afraid. The instant call for gun control may be justified, but it’s short-sighted if you think that’s going to fix your problems. The kid was calling out Christians for execution – think about that for a minute. What could have possibly influenced his behaviour in pop culture? I can name a few things.

    • Sam Schmitt

      “Even if the gun laws were as strict as those in Europe, he still would have been able to find a legal way to get a hold of a rifle (probably).”

      Or, if he couldn’t get it legally, then illegally. It’s not as if any gun law we can think up is going to stop someone who’s determined to commit mass murder.

  • Pete the Greek

    Walk into any bank in the US and you’ll see 2+ armed security, there to protect cash that’s already insured by the federal government. Walk into a school and..
    “only one unarmed security officer and that the community decided against armed guards last year.” Well, that was dumb. Unarmed security is basically no security.

    I’m guessing they should have posted signs on the school saying that firearms are not allowed on the premises.

    “President Obama issued a plea for greater gun control”
    – It would seem this is a dumb thing to do until we know the facts of what actually happened. Did he go out and buy all his weapons the day before? (in this case, I suppose, for example, a waiting period could be suggested, or an argument made for only certain numbers purchased at one time.) Or had he been planning this for months? (in which case, the above mentioned laws would be useless).

    “’Seems like the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight,’ he [the killer] wrote.”
    – Congrats, media. You’re giving him exactly what he wanted.

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      Okay, our community is flip-flop of that. No guards in our banks, and the schools each have a “resource” officer (I guess that’s less scary than calling him a police officer), who is armed.

  • Dave G.

    Do we know exactly how the NRA and the gun cult enabled this? What laws exactly that are being opposed by those groups would have stopped this? I’m not saying there isn’t evidence that the NRA and gun cult aren’t to blame. I’m just wanting some specifics. Though the whole ‘singled out Christians for murder’ side also seems worth looking at.

  • Joseph

    So, I just went on a coffee break with my colleagues. Two French men, three Irish men, and one German. I asked what they see as the problem in the US from their perspective.
    All of them, naturally, agreed that it’s the lack of gun control laws in the US (given that’s pretty much the international mainstream media narrative). However, they said the *bigger* problem is that the US is basically just a f*cked up society, that focusing only on gun control is like slapping a plaster on a weeping tumor.
    There you have it: making it all about gun control is for simple minds who are unwilling to face the fact and stare at the image in the mirror. The US is a nation that prides itself on the glorification of violence; from killing death row inmates to killing babies to killing innocent civilians in foreign countries for purely political and *strategic* reasons to inciting violence in foreign countries for their proxy wars to arming terrorists that reek bloody murder across entire regions (then adamantly defend that decision over and over again)… brains getting shot out on television is OK, corpses are OK, but so much as show a nipple and all hell breaks loose.
    Look in the mirror, Mark. The US is f*cked up. That’s the problem. All the way from the top down. Making this all about gun control is a good way to avoid the long, hard, stare America needs to have in the mirror. That’s part of this issue, but America needs to see a doctor instead of trying to put make up on their warts. Sadly, as is apparent, even Europe isn’t buying the narrative any longer. They see the US as a festering, cancerous tumor.

    • Pete the Greek

      “However, they said the *bigger* problem is that the US is basically just a f*cked up society”
      – Oh yeah… well how does this keep IRAN from getting a nuclear weapon and KILLING US ALL!??!11!eleventyone!!

      Oops, sorry, reverted to my media programming there. You know how it goes: anything to keep from solving our own problems.

      I do think there might be some firearm laws that could be tweaked. The CDC report commissioned by Obama seems to think so too, but even they caution that new gun control laws aren’t going to do much of anything.

      I think gun control is going to continue to become less and less palatable to politicians. This is not because of some all powerful NRA, but rather because firearm ownership is no longer mainly limited to rural, working and middle class white Republicans. When it was, you could almost get whatever you wanted passed regardless of how stupid the law was. These days the biggest market for defensive handguns and training on how to use them, for example, are suburban women across the political spectrum.

      Unlike politically attacking blacks, politically attacking lawful gun owners is no longer a safe way to distract people from handling real social problems.

      ON EDIT: “Two French men, three Irish men, and one German.”
      That sounds like the start to a joke. ‘So two French men, three Irish men, and one German go get coffee together…’

      • Joseph

        Don’t forget the Dane with a glass eye!

      • Elaine S.

        The fact that this shooting and many others have been carried out in officially designated “gun free zones” is not lost on many, even the media can’t ignore that fact anymore. It’s getting to the point that the first thought many people have when an atrocity like this takes place is not “we need tougher gun laws” but “maybe I should think about getting a gun and learning how to use it, so I can fight back if this happens in my neighborhood”

        • Joseph

          Maybe, but the guns used in these killings is too easily a scapegoat for the actual problems. If we get hung up on the debate of whether or not they happen in *gun free* zones or who gets trained with what, we’re missing the overall illness… American society is in the toilet. Going straight to *gun laws* is only treating a symptom, not the illness. Too many think that is the solution to the problem, but the very same people would object to a child who is unchallenged, overactive in school, or simply has a lazy teacher being forced to take anti-ADHD medication. So, those making instant leap to *gun laws will cure all ills* are sort of full of contradictions.

          • Pete the Greek

            “whether or not they happen in *gun free* zones”
            – The whole ‘gun free’ thing is a red herring on both sides of the debate.

            Yes, most of these attacks, if not almost all, take place in *gun free* zones, but then most big, public places post ‘no guns allowed anyway, and big public places are where these killers go. I don’t think they really exert the effort to research which places are posted ‘no guns allowed’ before going on their killing sprees.

            Now in this case, it was very public knowledge that the school decided against having any kind of armed security, so, maybe in this case it did play into it, I don’t know.

            Pro gun people who cite the *gun free* thing, implying that, had the place not been a *gun free* posted zone there there would have been someone with a CCL there who would have ended it. This statement is faulty for two reasons:

            1st – people who regularly carry concealed legally honestly don’t give a damn if a place is posted ‘No Guns Allowed’. They carry anyway. They ALL do. The only exception to this is if it is a place that has some kind of metal detectors and/or there are actual SEVERE legal penalties for carrying. Otherwise, the gun is carefully concealed, so no one will know anyway.
            2nd – Despite the number of CCLs that are out there, very few people who have them actually carry their weapon with any kind of regularity. Most will for a month or two, then barely bother. There are few of us who do so every day without real exceptions.

            So, a place being posted as *gun free*, in my opinion, doesn’t really affect the likelihood of a shooting taking place.

        • “It’s getting to the point that the first thought many people have when
          an atrocity like this takes place is not “we need tougher gun laws” but
          “maybe I should think about getting a gun and learning how to use it, so
          I can fight back if this happens in my neighborhood””

          This attitude worries me, though, because it is not just about knowing how to use a gun. Police officers receive a lot of training for these situations — how to stay calm, how to assess the situation and evaluate who is a danger and who isn’t, how to communicate (if possible) with the perpetrator, how to take him out with a minimum of collateral damage, and so on. And even that training doesn’t work perfectly, as (ahem) a New Yorker could tell you. So why do we think that a civilian who doesn’t have any of these skills could be Hollywood-style action hero? Yeah, she could get lucky and stop the perpetrator, but she could also panic and make the situation much, much worse.

          • Pete the Greek

            “Police officers receive a lot of training for these situations”
            – mmmmmm, not necessarily. Actual tactical training for standard rank and file law enforcement officers is actually rather slim. Matter of budgeting and the fact that it is practically never used.

            Take your average run of the mill patrol officer and have him run a tactical course in competition against an average pistol enthusiast. Unless the officer is also an enthusiast and practices a lot ON HIS OWN TIME AND DIME, usually the average guy will beat the cop handily. This is not a dig against law enforcement. Departments just have very limited funds. Training costs government money and there is the opportunity cost of not having the officer working. Add in the fact that your average officer goes his entire career without ever using his firearm and you can see why they don’t focus on it.

            It has nothing to do with being an action hero and FAR more just dealing with common sense and muscle memory.

            ” Yeah, she could get lucky and stop the perpetrator,”
            – Worst case, If it comes to that or just standing in a line facing the wall and waiting for the attacker to reach me so I can take my bullet in the back of the head like all the others, I’d rather she has that chance. That’s just me though.

            • Yeah, I had a feeling I was being overly optimistic about police training. But my point stands.

              “Worst case, If it comes to that or just standing in a line facing the
              wall and waiting for the attacker to reach me so I can take my bullet in
              the back of the head like all the others, I’d rather she has that
              chance. That’s just me though.”

              Well, of course. If someone does have a gun and does feel like she could help stop the guy or at lease defend herself, I’m not opposed to her trying (assuming she’s a reasonable person). But I don’t want to see such a hypothetical fetishized as the solution to these sorts of attacks.

    • Dave G.

      I have a good friend who moved to Ireland a few years ago (he was Catholic and was one of the cheerleaders for me coming into the Church at that time). He now lives in Hungary. Overall, you said about what he’s been saying. Not that Europe isn’t, he says. But there are differences.

      • Joseph

        It’s not yet *cool* to go on shooting rampages in Europe. The other factor, at least in Ireland, is that the vast majority of police here don’t pack. So, there isn’t a perceived threat from authorities either. To me, the gun *culture* starts with the cops who are way too eager to pull out their weapons and start shooting in the States, but I’m digressing again… in a way.
        If the European media gave as much attention to mass shootings and the individuals who perpetrate them (which ironically makes the shootings look like a positive thing because it’s all about politics), I’m sure you’d see more cowards doing stuff like this for the fame.
        I’ve said it before, there’s a shooting almost every week or less in Dublin. Handguns are illegal here.

  • Scott Bute

    Where is the outrage by the president over his home town of Chicago where hundreds of people are murdered every stinking month, and this in the city and state with the strictest gun control laws in our nation. How about a school with 3,000 students having a little more security than one guy armed with a can of mace?

    • Pete the Greek

      “Where is the outrage by the president over his home town of Chicago where hundreds of people are murdered every stinking month”
      – Uhm, the huge percentage of those victims are black. Most all of the people who kill them are also black. So, no one cares. Not trying to be flippant, just my opinion, and the statistics from the FBI seem to back it up.

      Sad state of affairs, but I believe that’s how most of the media and politicians see it.

      • Andy

        Black on black crime, white on white crime – read murders rarely get any coverage – we see it as part of our daily lives – in other words we are inured by murder of this sort. To raise our awareness it takes multiple deaths.
        Much of the problem stems I think from how we “glorify” these mass shootings – we turn the shooter into a cult hero of sorts and we deify those who are killed.
        Sharing in the pain of the families who have lost someone is a human response; it is an important response. It, the sharing, may ease if possible the pain of loneliness that is felt. But we need not nor should we elevate the suffering of these families beyond the pain of families who loose a family member via a drunk-driver – the pain is the same.
        Of bigger concern is how we examine the shooter and everything s/he does,I know to date as far as I can find all have been men, but I suspect that sooner of later we will see a woman do this. We look for signs that this was going to happen, we pour over Facebook and e-mail to see who should have known. And then we walk away and say yup, this person was “crazy” and there were no early signs that this was about to happen, and walk away from the problem.
        There are probably sane gun control laws that may be possible, i am not sure of that any more though, But we need to address mental health and spiritual health. Mental health is the secret disease, the disease that few will admit to. We have breast cancer awareness campaigns, for example, why not mental illness awareness campaigns? We extol the virtues of fighting any physical disease, but look down upon those who suffer from a mental illness. We need the dreaded paradigm shift to see that Mental Illness is not the fault of the individual, nor in most cases is it anyones fault, it is part of life.
        Spiritually we need to see that God, however a person see him, endows us with inherent worth and that worth must be protected. This means not hiding behind a religion to discriminate, not to hide behind a religion to attack those not like us, not to hide behind religion to devalue others. This takes leadership from both secular and religious leaders – something we seem short of in the US.

        • Andy

          Damn – this was supposed to be a stand-alone comment and not addressed just to Pete the Greek – whose comment I agree with.

        • Pete the Greek

          We have very little to go on yet. What seems to be the big thing, so far, is he was a major loner who didn’t have friends and relished the idea of publicity and fame. He also seemed to have a huge thing for the IRA, for whatever reason. But this may just be conjecture.

          This whole ‘loner’ thing mystifies me, though. I say that because for most of my life, THAT WAS ME. I worked all the time, didn’t really have friends, one or two here and there, no real connections as my family didn’t live in the state. Yeah, I was lonely a lot, and sometimes angry.


          Never ONCE did I ever contemplate attacking anyone, let alone KILLING anyone. It never entered my mind in any way. And I had PLENTY of access to firearms (own several).

          Yes, I know there is probably MUCH more to this case than just that. We’ll have to see how this comes out. But I still don’t get it when people go ‘Oh yeah, he was some loner, you know how they can get.’ No, actually. I don’t. I don’t get how people have that expectation.

          • Andy

            The loner thing does mystify me. I was a loner for much of my life – in fact my wife said that I seemed almost a recluse – but I agree I never thought about killing one or multiple people.

          • Joseph

            The irony is that the IRA, formerly the IRB, initially organised because the English occupiers of Ireland were determined to purge Ireland of its culture and religion. Gaelic was pretty much illegal in public and so was, in many areas, open Catholic worship (on Inishmaan there are stories of a stone where priests would serve Mass in secret because, if they were caught, they’d be killed… this is on an island that was only accessible at the time by currachs). So, initially, the IRA had a *noble* cause for the deliverance of ethnic and religious cleansing. What it ended up becoming may be different from its roots, but I digress.
            The point is, this guy deliberately targeted Christians for their beliefs, which is the opposite of what the group he was obsessed with was trying to achieve.
            So, I think we should add *uneducated* as a particular attribute of this shooter.
            And you’re right. There seems to be a growing trend to associate ‘introverts’ with psychopathy. Some social training may be at play here. I’m thinking of the ‘self-esteem’ training everyone was getting at my high school in the early 90s… which was very similar. Force the introverts out of their shell and make them become like the rest of us. In my life experience, the introverts I’ve met have been extremely intelligent people and that’s part of the reason they are alienated by society. They don’t fit into a society where people talk about the latest re-run of ‘Friends’ around a water cooler. Yet another digression on my part, but not totally disconnected as it does show another facet of just how screwed up American culture is. Unless you’re part of the lowest common denominator, you have no place in society. Am I making sense?

            • Pete the Greek

              Yes. The “You ain’t no more gooder than me!” is alive and well here in the US.

            • Cas

              Interesting tidbits and well said, my fellow introvert. I was going to suggest forming a social club where we could all get together and have big, crowded meetings, but, you know… introverts.

    • Joseph

      Like I said, the gun control debate is at the very tip of the festering, cancerous tumor. It’s pretty much a scapegoat for a royally f*cked up society that loves death.

      • Pete the Greek

        Wait, does that mean that the USA is…. THANOS!?

  • Mark, I really like you. If I didn’t I wouldn’t follow your posts, or Twitter, etc. Not a troll. I just want to know ONE law that the NRA opposes that would have stopped this guy’s actions.

    • Sam Schmitt

      I have the very same question . . . . any ideas?

    • Pete the Greek

      I’m still waiting to see if Mark will respond. I’m interested to know his answer.

    • chezami

      The NRA, which exists solely for the purpose of lining the pockets of gun manufacturers and does not give one damn about human life, has one and only one strategy after every gun slaughter and in the face of the fact that there have been 294 mass shootings in 274 days of 2015.

      “It’s too soon! Every day is too soon because there is a mass shooting every. single. day. Don’t politicize the latest mass slaughter by trying to prevent the next one! The dead would want you to honor them by making sure as many more people are slaughtered as possible! Do nothing. Attempt nothing. Give up. Don’t try. Won’t work. MOAR GUNS! And besides, if you seek to reduce our gun slaughter rate, you must support abortion, because what could opposition to the slaughter of innocents outside the womb have to do with opposition to the slaughter of innocents inside the womb.” – The Anti-Abortion-but-not-Prolife Gun Cult’s Eternal Strategy for maintaining the annual human sacrifice of 32,000 souls to Moloch

      The US is unique in our gun slaughter rate among developed nations. We could change that if we had the will. The NRA exists to throw cold water on that will. It is a force for evil in American life, just like Catholics for a Free Choice. I look forward to the day God destroys it.

      • Stu

        The US is fairly unique in of itself.

        It would be interesting to hear you answer to his question, though. Honestly.

      • Pete the Greek

        “Do nothing. Attempt nothing.”
        – Don’t see a single person in this comment section that is saying that. What we ARE saying is perhaps we should perhaps be a little more wise in figuring out what it is we should do instead of throwing out the first law we see because it would make us feel better.

        “if you seek to reduce our gun slaughter rate, you must support abortion”
        – Citation needed.

        ” We could change that if we had the will.”
        – Considering that we are at a 50 year low for violent crime, I’d say we ARE doing something. But I’d agree there’s still a lot we can do.

        BTW, you can go ahead and admit that there isn’t a law that the NRA stopped that would have prevented this particular attack. It’s not going to make you look bad or anything. Laws can’t stop everything.

        • Igotfreshmilk

          ” ‘Do nothing. Attempt nothing.’
          – Don’t see a single person in this comment section that is saying that. What we ARE saying is perhaps we should perhaps be a little more wise in figuring out what it is we should do instead of throwing out the first law we see because it would make us feel better.”

          And yet, you have neither proposed nor suggested anything at all that might help, and every single suggestion to which you have responded you have been totally negative about. I would say that a 100% reaction against doing anything at all is close enough to “Do nothing, attempt nothing”.

          What would you suggest is “more wise” than what is happening now?

          • Stu

            I would suggest that we first identify the loopholes in the current system and then move forward.

            Is there a possibility that we have actually reached a point of diminishing returns? Gun violence is at low. And while we all throw out the number of 32,000 deaths per year that amounts to .01% of the population. Now, I’m not trying to be glib about people dying, but at what number would we proclaim “success”? 20,000? 15,0000? And if 20,000 of those deaths are suicides, wouldn’t a better answer be more attention on getting those people help?

            I think you get a lot of challenges to your proposals because the just don’t seem aimed at the problem and most of the low-hanging fruit in this challenge has been taken.

          • Pete the Greek

            I have actually. Many times. In fact, almost every time this comes up. The only real gun one that I would support directly would be updates in the background check system and more liability for people who actually allow people to have their firearms when they commit crimes with them. I’ve mentioned that elsewhere.

            There are other things we can do to, especially dealing with mental health, drug use, etc.

            I’ve actually posted various ideas around when this topic comes up, I just don’t copy/paste them every time.

          • Joseph

            You must be new here. This is like the gazillionth “gun bans will cure all ills” post. Every time there are proposals made by both sides of the debate. You’d have to check the archives. At some point we have to realise, however, that we are ultimately powerless. The government does what it wants to do. Our suggestions and ideas, no matter how brilliant, only work as a form of self-affirmation. It sucks because there have been many good ones.

            • chezami

              Could you document for me where I have ever said that, or even called for a gun ban? The voices in your head are decieving you.

              • Joseph

                When I get to my laptop, perhaps this evening, I will dig through your archives and try and find something. If I’m wrong I’ll apologise. But that’s a big job you’re asking me to undertake.
                I’m making that statement based on the memory of several cries that the Second Amendment is obsolete (which is clearly an implication that private gun ownership should not be protected by law… which is clearly an implication that private citizens should not be allowed to own guns… which is way more extreme than the favourite list of comparison countries that get trotted out in these discussions).

                If you never said anything like that then forgive me, but before I start looking (which sucks that you are asking me to when the debates in your comboxes always inevitably arrive at the evils of the 2nd Amendment and how it contradicts Catholic Social Teaching), would you mind doing the same? It’s not going to embarrass me any if I’m wrong, because, like I said, your comboxes always inevitably end up in that discussion. I’m not making the accusation out of malice. I can simply apologise. However, if you’re wrong, your sort of going to look like Cecile Richards who said under oath, “We don’t do mammograms, never have, nobody has ever said that we have” when there is video evidence that she, in fact, made that claim on national television.

  • Eve Fisher

    The whole problem with the “good guy/bad guy with a gun” meme is quite simple: you can’t tell the first from the second until AFTER the bad guy’s killed people. And the only time a good guy actually stops the bad guy with a gun is AFTER the bad guy’s shot some people. So, solutions?

    (1) Mandatory gun insurance: your gun is used in a crime, or an accident, you’re liable. (BTW, this might close the gun show/private sale loopholes, because while people can still sell their guns to anyone who wants it, if that person uses that gun, and it’s still on your insurance, you’re still liable.)

    (2) Ban all assault and semi-assault weapons. The 2nd Amendment was written in the days of muzzle-loaders; at some point, we have the right to call a halt to the level of weaponry people can have and carry.

    (3) Connect the databases for background checks.

    (4) Roll back the NRA-backed “Relief From Disability” laws and the “Firearm Owners Protection Act” laws that allow convicted felons have weapons. (If you can’t vote, why should you have a gun?) http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm

    (5) Roll back all open-carry laws. Right now, open carry is permitted in all but 6 states, and the NRA is working hard on changing the state laws there. In open carry states, not only can people carry any weapon they like in public, but the police have been stripped of their right to ask any questions or even tell them to leave (like for scaring everyone else). A lot of us believe that anyone openly carrying long weapons is ipso facto at least an egomaniac, deliberately provocative, and dangerous.

    There’s my list to start. Something must be done.

    • Pete the Greek

      OK. Can you point out how these would have prevented this attack?

      Also, what is a ‘semi assault’?

      • Eve Fisher

        “Semi-assault” weapons are those that have extreme hair triggers. So you can only fire as fast as your trigger finger can move. Slows it down a bit, but not enough. No, I can’t point out how these would have prevented THIS attack, but I think I’ve made the case for how these would increase safety in this country. At least it’s a start, which is more than the classic, “there’s nothing that can be done” about gun violence in this country. There is.

        • Pete the Greek

          No, that’s a nonsense term, as I feared.

          ‘Assault Rifles’ are select fire weapons. If you do not have a select fire capability it is merely a semi-automatic. ‘Semi-assault’ doesn’t exist.

          No, going after non-existent ‘semi-assaults’, or whatever you want to call them, will not make anyone actually safer. Why? According to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, semi-automatic rifles (which is what you really mean), are grouped as a smaller category under general ‘long arms’). According to them, their use in crime is actually statistically irrelevant.

          And you mean ‘standard capacity’, as it is entirely dependent on what the specific gun in question was designed to use. Also, considering that the overwhelming number of deaths in the US due to gun violence involve 3 or LESS shots being fired, I’m not sure how a capacity restriction would fix anything.

          ” At least it’s a start”
          – No, you confuse ‘start’ with ‘do something, anything to make me feel good about this!!!’, which is what you are saying.

          Yes, there are things we can do. Your suggestions address nothing, however, and only serve to showcase a lack of study on the matter. Or perhaps you are confusing your means and ends. MY end is that I’d like to see a decrease in violence. YOUR end seems to be ‘I just want to go after gun people’.

          • Stu


            Cut her a bit of slack. She did put forth some specific recommendations, though I agree that I don’t think they address the problem at hand. Regardless, I think her end goal is the same but that her knowledge of firearms needs some sharpening.

            • Pete the Greek

              You’re right, Stu. Eve, I disagree strongly, but please accept my apology for being a bit snippy.

              • Eve Fisher

                I accept. I agree, I do not know all the fine points about weaponry. Or even a lot of the rough ones. I am trying to come up with specific recommendations about how to curb gun violence.

        • Stu
    • considerthefacts

      “Something must be done”


      These links shows that over the last approximately 30 years:

      1. The number of gun homicides is down (though gun suicide is up):


      2. The annual number of “mass shootings” is NOT increasing, it’s been essentially flat:


      So, if “something” must be done, why?
      And please, answer PtG’s questions about how your proposals would have stopped this (or any other) attack?

      To your points:
      1. Insurance doesn’t make you liable. You should read about insurance. This might be a good idea, might not, but how it addresses the alleged “problem” is unclear.

      2. How about this: “ban all political speech on the internet and television and radio. The 1st amendment was written in the days of printing presses, leaflets, and handbills; at some point we have the right to call a halt to how much speech people are entitled to broadcast. Or consider the 4th amendment – GPS, xray, drug-dogs, etc. didn’t exist when it was adopted – does that mean those aren’t searches? “Solutions” that ignore the constitution are not solutions, they’re tantrums.

      3. OK, unless you’re suggesting that the federal gov’t force the states to enforce federal law.

      4. Don’t know enough to know if those are good or bad laws. But, generally, if states do or don’t want to allow felons (after completing their sentences) to own/possess guns, I’m good with that.

      5. Incoherent. Pass a law against “scaring people” and they police can chase them away for you . The police weren’t “stripped of their right” to do anything. Police have the powers we give them, and questioning a person who is breaking no law, without at least reasonable suspicion, is one of the (remaining) protections that citizens have that distinguishes the US from a police state.

      More likely to be effective, as noted elsewhere in this thread, are measures dealing with how we treat mental illness. But those are uncomfortable debates, because it means restricting the freedom of people who are not always ill and not always dangerous.

      • Eve Fisher

        #5 is no more incoherent, or asking for a law against “scaring people”, than the raw fear of the federal government you show in your responses to almost all of these.

        • considerthefacts

          If you’ve lost children in this kind of attack, then I’m very sorry for your loss. I will pray for you and your children.

          If not, I’ll still pray for y’all, but consider this: This post was about specifics. As soon as your proposals were challenged, you retreated to generalities. Now, many people, myself included think you aren’t really interested in policy, you just want something to stop the bad people. That’s not how it works.

          • Eve Fisher

            No, I have not lost any of my biological children to gun violence; but that doesn’t matter – they are all our children.

            I strongly believe that gun violence can be at least lessened through specific actions and legislation, which will require people to take their gun ownership seriously. Gun insurance – maybe they’ll keep their guns locked up, away from their toddlers and the neighbors. Recognize that the 2nd Amendment does not mean you get to have every weapon that exists as your own personal firearm. (Semi-automatic and automatic weapons, for example. Or flamethrowers, available on an internet near you) Hook up, federalize and maintain, the databases for background checks so that those who fail are reported all across the board. Repeal laws allowing felons to own guns. (I’d have thought this was a no-brainer, but apparently not.) Repeal laws allowing open-carry.

            These would not have prevented THIS massacre, perhaps. But these will prevent others.

            • Pete the Greek

              “Gun insurance – maybe they’ll keep their guns locked up”
              – Hmmm, not sure about that. People can already be held legally liable for misuse and if children get them.

              ” Recognize that the 2nd Amendment does not mean you get to have every weapon that exists as your own personal firearm.”
              – But that’s already been accepted. that’s why the 1934 act and the 1986 act were passed (with NRA support, if I recall). Heavy weapons and destructive devices are already banned or strictly controlled. The rest of the semi auto rifles, as I have pointed out, are statistically irrelevant to the numbers, as the primary firearm used in murder is still the handgun. Last I checked, the most used of that type is the old .38 revolver.

              Properly implemented and open to public use, I’d support a better background check system.

              Which felons are allowed to purchase firearms?

              I’ll agree that open carry people tend to be loud and brash. But, what is the crime rate among them? I’d be willing to guess it’s probably around that of CCW holders, which happens to be equal or less than cops. I’m guessing it’s more that they make you feel uncomfortable as opposed to genuine safety, which is understandable. Personally I don’t think people should carry open ever. You lose all of your advantages that way. Why would you do that?

              • Eve Fisher

                Yes, people can be held legally liable for misuse and if children get them – but it’s honored more in the breach than the observance. As Loyola law professor Blaine LeCesne said “It’s more crime prevention rhetoric than an actual reflection of the law.” There are no child access prevention laws at the federal level, and federal law does not generally require gun owners to safely store their guns. Most states only make it illegal to let a child have access to a gun if you know that the child’s going to use it illegally. (In other words, no legal penalty for not locking the gun up, even from toddlers)

                Here’s the link for various types of felons who were given “relief”:
                This is also informative:

                Re the primary firearm used in murder being the handgun, that’s true; but in mass shootings, it’s the semi-automatic handgun (direct quote, so I’m getting that one right):(http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/31/dhs-semiautomatic-hanguns-most-commonly-used-weapon-in-mass-shootings-n1502393)

                The main problem with open carry people is quite simple: how can you tell if they’re going to open fire or not? The answer: you can’t. (This is one of the reasons why, even in the Wild West, once they got a sheriff in town, they made people lock up their guns.) And there have been a number of open-carry enthusiasts who have killed their families. (Google it.)

            • Stu

              On gun insurance, why should we burden someone for something that another may do with their property illegally? Certainly if a thief heisted your car to use in a bank robbery, we wouldn’t expect your auto insurance to cover that?

              On open carry, why is that an issue? How does that stop a massacre when all one has to do is conceal the weapon? Another train of thought is that open carry puts things out in the open. It’s concealed carry that is the issue and why many states make you go through a background check before being allowed to do so.

              • Eve Fisher

                Uh, actually, if someone steals your car and has an accident, your insurance will pay for it and your rates will go up. “If your vehicle is stolen, your insurance company will pay for any damage or injury the thief causes. However, if your vehicle is stolen by someone you know, such as a friend or family member, the insurance company may require you to prove that the vehicle was stolen and not simply taken without your permission. If you do not report the vehicle as stolen or do not do so until after you know about the accident, you may not receive insurance company compensation.” (and your rates will go up)


                And you can also be arrested and charged with “aiding and abetting” a criminal, if they stole/used your car, and you can’t “prove” they stole it, and if the police/sheriff are being stroppy about it. It’s been known to happen. (your rates are going to go up.)

                Again, the thing with open carry is like the good guy/bad guy thing. Open carry people expect everyone around them to “know” that they’re good guys, even if we don’t know them from Adam’s off ox. We don’t. And why should we? It’s perfectly normal – a survival mechanism if you will – to assume that someone with a weapon slung over their shoulder – or int heir hands – is dangerous. Most people in the US don’t really want to go back to living in the “wild west” – and even then, once the sheriff arrived, people had to lock up their guns.

                • Stu

                  I found another source that states if criminals steal your vehicle and do damage with it, most insurance companies would not honor any claims. And why should they?

                  But the bigger question, is how would these things you are suggesting prevent the massacres?

                  • Eve Fisher

                    It’s called attrition. Working around it. Since nobody is going to ban guns (sorry, Fox News, it ain’t gonna happen), what you do is work around the problem of gun violence. You make it so that people are liable for their actions, even if they’re accidental. You make it so that felons and the mentally ill don’t get to use guns legally. You make it so that those who provide them with guns are held accountable. You make it so that gun sales are not made outside the loop of background checks, and when they are, if those guns are used the people who sold the gun to the criminal is also liable as an accessory. You make it so that when a gun is not stored safely and is used, it’s liable, if nothing else to insurance charges.

                    Basically, I propose using the exact same tactics that conservatives have been using for years with abortion: setting up limitations, difficulties, waiting periods, restricting access, requiring mandatory counseling, etc. And exactly the opposite tactics that the NRA has been using for years to expand gun ownership to anybody and everybody on two legs.

                    • Stu

                      I think people are liable for their actions if they kill another. We have a law for that. I’m not sure how making everyone else carry insurance for those who break the law on their own accord is going to stop what you are concerned about. Nor do I think it is really enforceable. I’d be the first to admit, I’d simply sell my firearms and get some off the books. But, I’m not the guy you are looking for.

        • considerthefacts

          Your now-deleted response was something along the lines of “I know, my dead kids aren’t as important as your constitutional rights.” That’s why my response says what it says.

          This new response is deflection. Your specifics are challenged and you say: “takes one to know one”

          I have no more “fear” (raw or cooked) of the federal government than the Founders said I should.

          Have a good day.

          • Eve Fisher

            I deleted that response because I didn’t want to pass on the inflammatory statement. To be honest, I considered your first reply to be a deflection as well: it mostly boiled down to “anything the states want to do is fine with me, but don’t let the feds in on it.” Shall we agree to disagree?

    • Stu


      Available in the Colonies in 1750.

      • Eve Fisher

        Never heard of it before – thank you for sharing.

        • Stu

          And my only point is that repeating rifles were known at the time of the Constitution and certainly the Framers would have been aware of such things.

          But you are welcome. I appreciate you watching.

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      Semi assault weapons?

      I have a suggestion for fixing the situation: only consider input from people who don’t make things up, or at the very least are informed enough to know they’re making things up.

      • Eve Fisher

        I apologize profusely. I should have used the term semi-automatic weapons.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          So you’d ban the average squirrel gun in the name of public safety? I’d have stuck with semiassault, frankly

          Let me guess… You live in an urban or suburban environment, purchase your food from grocers, mostly travel by foot on sidewalks?

          It’s a diverse world, you know. I know they’re horrible people who deserve their lot in life, but rural folks, especially the rural poor, need to feed and protect themselves.

          I frankly don’t see why they should have their lives hampered in such an extreme way just because your society is a cesspool of violence.

          • Eve Fisher

            Sorry, you’re absolutely wrong about my life, where I live, what I’ve experienced, and what I’ve eaten. Please read what I wrote again: nowhere did I impinge on the need to feed and protect.

  • Igotfreshmilk

    I am not a gun owner, nor very sympathetic to gun nuts, legal or not. I have not yet lost any friend or relative in one of these mass shootings. So these are just thoughts not powered by any personal experience.

    My impression is that the increasing frequency of mass shootings is a real and serious problem, and needs and deserves real and serious solutions. I ha e only two modest proposals. First of all start with the production of guns. Gun manufacturers should be allowed only to manufacture enough guns for legitimate law enforcement and a very tiny number of hobby uses, only for carefully screened people. Second, all news media would be forbidden to give attention to mass murders.

    Yes I have heard of the First and second amendments but the degree to which we are no longer a constitutional nation is pretty well established. Can’t we have any freedom to protect ourselves from these kinds of criminals?

    • Pete the Greek

      I was going to offer a response, but…

      • Igotfreshmilk

        Nope, neither. I wonder what you think I am highly uninformed about?

        • Pete the Greek

          This topic, for starters. It’s rather obvious. What ‘information’ you seem to have on this topic barely rises to the Instagram meme level.

          • Igotfreshmilk

            Isn’t the topic what changes could be made to our laws to prevent the increase in mass shootings? I am informed about the fact that the President said today, as others have said before, that the United States is the only country in the developed world that has anywhere near this level of mass shootings. I am informed about the fact that American enterprise is really good at creating markets for what they manufacture. Note, for example, that the gun culture has been saying that the problem is that we need MORE guns. Self interest at the expense of everyone else! I am informed about the fact that there are studies showing that a desire for publicity is a common motivation for mass murderers. I am informed about the fact that the Supreme Court made up a “right” to abortion pursuant to a “right” they found not in the Constitution but in the aura of the penumbra of the Constitution, which is as close as can be to saying that a Constitutional right is whatever they say it is. I am informed about the fact that after adding to the Constitution without going through an amendment process in Connecticut vs. Griswold and Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court subtracted from it in the Kelo decision, when they decided that a rich company has the right to use the government to take away property from a private citizen for sheer profit for the company, which is pretty much what the 4th and 5th amendments were against. I am informed about the fact that when the Supreme Court decided that school segregation was unconstitutional they did not satisfy themselves with that but went into minute detail ruling on the exact proportion of different races that had to be in certain schools, and decided how this was to be achieved (bussing)

            So if the Supreme Court finds that we have a right to be free from mass murderers they could also get into the minutiae of restricting the manufacture of weapons, and limiting the glorification of the murderers by the news media.

            I don’t think this is trolling, or ignorant. Do you, really? Or is that just a really strong expression of your disagreement?

            • Pete the Greek

              So, you really DON’T know any good info on this topic, nor studied it. Got it. Congrats about abortion ruling knowledge. Not really relevant to this discussion, though.

              You are obviously quite impressed with the breadth of your knowledge, but, if I may….

              “My impression is that the increasing frequency of mass shootings”
              – Uhm, no. They aren’t. That’s not opinion. That’s the reports done by the FBI on crime statistics. Our rate of these terrible events has remained pretty much steady for many many years. This is in spite of a general lessening of some of the sillier gun restrictions. Violent crime, taken as a whole, is actually at a near 50 year low right now.

              “First of all start with the production of guns. ”
              – Firearm companies are subject to supply and demand. They don’t invent it as you seem to think. In fact right now the price on AR series rifles is shooting through the floor because *GASP!* demand for them has collapsed. Walmart stopped carrying them as demand has shifted more standard lever and bolt long arms. I await the magic spell Armalite et al will be casting to force us to buy more….

              “Yes I have heard of the First and second amendments but the degree to which we are no longer a constitutional nation is pretty well established. ”
              – So just… throw it out. Yes, see THIS is what labels you as a clown.

              • Igotfreshmilk

                I disagree with you, but I can manage to do so without calling you names, and trying to be mean. Why do you feel it necessary and desirable to belittle me in order to disagree?

                • Pete the Greek

                  You misunderstand. There are plenty of people on here that disagree with me on various topics, especially this one. The thing is, they don’t pretend they know a lot on the topic.

                  Imagine as a Catholic who accepts the teachings of the Church debating a more ‘progressive’ variety Catholic historian who thinks women’s ordination is actually something that can happen. One can still have a strong, perhaps even heated, debate on the topic.

                  Then imagine a highschool New Atheist type, whose knowledge on the topic is limited to what he heard from a couple of reruns on Bill Maher’s show, strolling in and demanding to be taken seriously on the topic. That’s essentially what you pulled.

                  • Igotfreshmilk

                    There are two different issues. One is whether or not I am right about certain statements, for instance that mass shootings are increasing. Another is whether insulting me is an appropriate way to convey that you disagree. As to the first, I have looked at several different studies that come to different conclusions based on such clear differences as how they define mass shootings. Some of them do find a clear increase. It is not ignorant to look at the current research.

                    As to the second, I ask again why you want to be mean to me? Are you trying to scare me away because you are afraid I might be right?

                    • Pete the Greek

                      The point is not that we disagree. The point is that you don’t know enough about the topic to have a valuable contribution to the discussion, but insist that you do.

                    • Igotfreshmilk

                      The point is that instead of responding to any point that I made, or simply ignoring me if I am beneath notice, you decided to call me names, to deride and belittle my effort to contribute. Why do you think that is a decent way to respond?

  • Anna

    Funny how in all the coverage the bit about asking for religious affiliation (which was mentioned a bit initially) is not appearing in any headlines I’m seeing. All the details in that NY Post account are absent from anywhere else; any stories I’ve seen are only from people who weren’t in the actual classroom.

    • Joseph

      It’s pretty obvious why that is.

  • AquinasMan

    So I know it’s been a correlation that gets chuckled at because, “those things are harmless!”, but from a bystander’s perspective it seems that intense video-gaming is a common thread among most of these crackpots, along with some sort of social handicap. Seems like a toxic brew — like pornography — the thrill begins to dull, so keep turning up the heat until the next best fix is to start killing real people. And most of these “shooter” games, though sometimes set inside “historical” events, are also often set in anarchic societal backdrops where a person can kill random civilians at will, on top of whatever other objectives there are. That whole 20-something unmarried guy sitting in the basement shooting people all day is a real thing. Throw in mental or emotional instability, a chip on the shoulder, and access to real weapons, and this is what happens. I think very little attention is being paid to the violence-as-addictive-entertainment sector, which makes billions and billions of dollars every year in revenues.

  • Bemused

    The problem with addressing this only as a “solution during a crisis” type issue is that the real problems of gun violence get glossed over. In mass shooting type situations, generally speaking to only laws that could have reduced that situation if passed the day before are things like making the sales of automatic or semi automatic guns illegal or outlawing extra large large clips. An actual reduction in gun violence involves more long term type solutions which might or might not have stopped specific situations in particular but are likely to reduce situations over all, in part because they would be likely to reduce the number of guns floating around in general.

    Some examples of non-sexy things that would be likely to reduce future gun violence (in general, rather than just mass shootings) are things like waiting periods, background checks, requiring insurance, etc. Training in situational awareness, gun safety, psychological awareness (people are most likely to shoot themselves or a family member). Less fetishization of guns would help as well. A gun is a tool. People should treat their gun like a tool and not like some symbol for their independent spirit. Very few people think their screw-driver set is some kind of huge symbol of their personal independence from society/government. Equally, guns are not some kind of demon made of metal, a fetishization of guns as the source of all violence in society is not useful either.

    • Eve Fisher

      YES! I agree totally.

    • Andy

      I agree with what you have presented. THose seem logical and sane, and thus won’t be considered by most Americans.

    • Joseph

      Absolutely. The way guns are advertised has an effect. But I think it’s more of a cultural issue. Having been raised in the desert Southwest, I can tell you that there is still an attachment to history. Probably the only truly interesting American history, the Wild West. Communities still carry those behaviors with them to this day (fend for yourself, handle bad situations without police involvement, etc.). As you know, guns played a huge role in that culture. Combined with the fact that gun ownership is a right protected in the Constitution, it’s not going to be easy to change hearts and minds.

      But it can start with advertising for sure. Remember cigarette ads were banned because they made cigarettes look sexy, rugged, and fun. That precedent has been set.

      • Joseph

        By the way, the method in which the media reports these mass shootings is advertising as well. In the last two popularised shootings, both gunmen stated that they made their decisons based on the media popularity other mass shooters received. So, the media is in on this too.

        • Igotfreshmilk

          Yes! If only we could, by law if nothing else would work, prevent the media sensation that follows these events I think we would see less of them.

          • Phillip

            Freedom of the press. Another constitutional right we should limit.

      • Bemused

        That’s actually part of where I got the attitude that guns are tools. Part of my family were Colorado cattlemen for 100 years, and my uncles might be buried with their sidearms but they aren’t spending a lot of time going to specialized shooting ranges because they just HAVE to fire a machine gun and they don’t own a million guns either. The weapons they have are each for a specific purpose and are used for that purpose. They have gun-safes, they go to the range regularly, they don’t leave their weapons on the freaking driveway for people to steal. They don’t spend a lot of time admiring themselves for their freedom, it’s part of their lives that they treat with appropriate respect. However, the NRA has spent a lot of money telling them and people like them that background checks are the end of the world, even though they would never fail one.

  • Andy

    Lets for the moment avoid the gun/no gun issue. Instead as I was sting lunch I heard that this individual had written recently wrote – from CBS I have noticed that so many people like [Flanagan] are alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are. A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems like the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight. As we seek ways to prevent these mass murders – lets not give the killer so much notoriety, waste so much “ink” or so many pixels on him. That should not offend anyone.

    • Igotfreshmilk

      Great idea!

  • Stu

    For everyone, a tidbit or two.

    Possession of an automatic weapon has been practically illegal in the USA since 1934. Indeed, there are ways that one can own such a firearm but it require a lot of scrutiny. None of the shootings over the years that have gained national attention involved such a firearms.

    Semi-Automatic weapons (one trigger squeeze, one shot) have been around in this country for over 100 years. And even before that, lever action rifles were available which can also fire quite quickly. There is nothing new about this technology.

    Being semi-automatic does not equate into being a so-called “assault rifle”. Many plain looking hunting rifles are semi-automatic as are many handguns.

    Just some clarification for the sake of clarification.

  • Solemn Bastion

    Guns, no guns, whatever. Let’s keep it what it really is: a sin issue. And let’s rejoice that even more of us have been shown a quick path Home. Indeed, pray for us, Holy Christian Martyrs of Oregon.