Yet another mass shooting - Umpqua Community College, Oregon

In summary, President Obama spoke about gun violence in America and offered a challenge to the media and federal and state governments. He also released the names of the victims of the Umpqua Community College shooting. There have been 294 shootings in the United States so far this year, and at least 10 people were killed.
  • #1
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2023 Award
21,903
6,321
At least 10 dead in shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon
http://news.yahoo.com/shooting-umpqua-community-college-oregon-182211198.html

Excellent address by Obama on the matter of gun violence, and a challenge to the media and federal and state governments.http://news.yahoo.com/many-dead-20-wounded-shooting-184014927.html#

The numbers of victims seem to vary, but apparently at least 10 killed (including shooter).According to CNN - the shooter had "body armor with him and was heavily armed, with a large amount of ammunition -- enough for a prolonged gunfight."

He was not identified by local authorities, but CBS, CNN and NBC named him, so avoid those media sites if you don't want to know the guys name.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Astronuc said:
He was not identified by local authorities, but CBS, CNN and NBC named him, so avoid those media sites if you don't want to know the guys name.
Another sad shooting by someone who should not be remembered.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #3
'Hero' Umpqua Community College Student Chris Mintz Speaks After Being Shot 7 Times
https://gma.yahoo.com/hero-umpqua-community-college-student-chris-mintz-speaks-154937626--abc-news-topstories.html

The student and Army veteran who witnesses say charged the shooter at a community college in Oregon is alert and awake at the hospital as he recovers.

Chris Mintz, 30, was shot seven times during the Thursday rampage, but he says his main concern is about the others who were injured.
The gunman apparently opened fire on fellow students in his community college English class, killing nine people, was an Army boot camp dropout who studied mass shooters before becoming one himself!
http://news.yahoo.com/terrible-day-9-killed-gunman-oregon-town-063530204.html
Officials on Friday also released the names of the dead, who ranged in age from 18 to 67 and included several freshmen and a teacher (67). They were sons and daughters, spouses and parents.
Victims were identified as assistant English professor Lawrence Levine, 67, and eight people believed to be his students: Quinn Cooper, 18; Kim Saltmarsh Dietz, 59; Lucas Eibel, 18; Jason Johnson, 33; Sarena Moore, 44; Treven Anspach, 20; and Rebecka Carnes, 18; and Lucero Alcaraz, 19.
http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-gunman-may-killed-more-not-hero-student-023653508.html

So far this year, 294 U.S. mass shootings have been reported nationwide, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker website, a crowd-sourced database kept by anti-gun activists that logs events in which four or more people are shot.
Really ?!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
And we worry about terrorists. to quote Pogo " We have met the enemy and he is us."

Can anybody explain the rationale for not having at least a background check on all gun purchasers?
 
  • #5
gleem said:
background check
How dare you "unseal" juvenile records.
 
  • #6
Astronuc said:
http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-gunman-may-killed-more-not-hero-student-023653508.html

So far this year, 294 U.S. mass shootings have been reported nationwide, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker website, a crowd-sourced database kept by anti-gun activists that logs events in which four or more people are shot.

Really ?!

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

According to that site, the criterion is four or more people injured or killed. There are links to news reports for (I hope) each of the incidents; I checked only a few.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
The question that needs to be addressed is "How does society keep guns out of the hands of those who have some mental illness or some inclination to cause harm to others?" Doing it after the fact doesn't help the victims of homicide.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #8
gleem said:
...

Can anybody explain the rationale for not having at least a background check on all gun purchasers?
Oregon is one of the seven states that requires background checks for all gun purchases of guns. Smuggling from state to state is crime issue, and isn't tied to these mass shootings by the deranged.

I think improvement lies in addressing the mental health laws.
 
  • Like
Likes nsaspook
  • #9
gleem said:
And we worry about terrorists. to quote Pogo " We have met the enemy and he is us."

Can anybody explain the rationale for not having at least a background check on all gun purchasers?

From what I've read the shooter had something like 14 guns all of which were purchased legally with a background check from an establishment with a Federal Firearms License.

If someone is going to commit mass murder as their first offense there is almost no preventative measure you can take that wouldn't affect everyone else.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes nsaspook
  • #10
Can somebody give me an example of a mental health law that would prevent any of this? Are we going to put depressives in jail? Start screening for SSRI use in the background check? I can't imagine any mental health solution being less draconian than simple gun control.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
DavidSnider said:
Can somebody give me an example of a mental health law that would prevent any of this? Are we going to put depressives in jail? Start screening for SSRI use in the background check? I can't imagine any mental health solution being less draconian than simple gun control.
I think the objective is to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill individuals, however, I would imagine that such an approach would run smack into HIPAA.

I'm not sure how mental health could be included in a background check. Disclosing one's mental health issues would have to be voluntary, but I would suspect someone with a disposition to do harm to others would probably not disclose such a disposition.
 
  • #12
Astronuc said:
I think the objective is to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill individuals, however, I would imagine that such an approach would run smack into HIPAA.

It is already in place for those who have been involuntarily committed. However, I would argue that this is simultaneously too loose and too tight. If someone were committed because of a suicide attempt in their teens, and after treatment hasn't had an episode in decades, we as a society say "No, you can't be a security guard, because that's too risky." On the other hand, if their very first episode involves paranoid delusions, maybe mixed with alcohol or drugs, he is not stopped from purchasing a gun or guns.

Estimates are that a few percent - 3-5% - of violent crimes are committed by the mentally ill. Other estimates are that 18% of the population has had some mental illness episode within the last year. (One could conclude from that that only the mentally ill should be allowed firearms. ) I have a problem with restricting the rights of law-abiding but mentally ill people to make a tiny increase in overall safety, particularly as a first step. One might start by restricting gun purchases to men, since they commit 5/6 of the homicides but make up 1/2 the population.

It's also worth pointing out that the definition of "mentally ill" has changed over time. A few decades ago, homosexuality was a mental illness and Asperger's was not. Today it's the other way around. Do you really want fundamental rights depending on something so fluid?
 
  • Like
Likes billy_joule
  • #13
Opponents of gun control often say background checks are ineffective, See below

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/who-the-nra-really-speaks-for/ar-AAf9KfR?li=AAa0dzB&ocid=UP97DHP
 
  • #14
DavidSnider said:
Can somebody give me an example of a mental health law that would prevent any of this? Are we going to put depressives in jail? Start screening for SSRI use in the background check? I can't imagine any mental health solution being less draconian than simple gun control.
Jail? The idea is to prohibit gun ownership by the mentally ill, not throw them in jail. Hardly draconian.
 
  • #15
Astronuc said:
I think the objective is to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill individuals, however, I would imagine that such an approach would run smack into HIPAA.
HIPAA can be modified by Congress; not so the 2nd Amendment.
 
  • #16
Vanadium 50 said:
Estimates are that a few percent - 3-5% - of violent crimes are committed by the mentally ill.
Among the perpetrators of the highly publicized mass shootings the rate is far higher, and they are universally young males.

Lanza (Sandy Hook)- “severe and deteriorating internalized mental health problems”
Homes (Colorado movie theater) - “was seeing a psychiatrist specializing in schizophrenia”
Rodger (Isla Vista, Ca) - "suffered from Asperger’s disorder and took psychotropic medications"
Loughner (Arizona) - "underwent psychiatric examinations at a secure federal facility in Missouri for more than a year and was diagnosed with schizophrenia"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/#bib6
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/jared-loughner-mass-shootings-mental-illness
 
  • #17
mheslep said:
HIPAA can be modified by Congress; not so the 2nd Amendment.

Wait, why can't the 2nd amendment be modified by congress? Isn't that what an 'amendment' is?
 
  • #18
mheslep said:
Jail? The idea is to prohibit gun ownership by the mentally ill, not throw them in jail. Hardly draconian.

I think the NRA would disagree with that. For years they were blocking bills to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of domestic abuse.
 
  • #19
DavidSnider said:
Wait, why can't the 2nd amendment be modified by congress? Isn't that what an 'amendment' is?

Yes. It "only" requires a 2/3 majority vote by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by approval by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Have at it. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Likes Czcibor and nsaspook
  • #20
I don't think Congress would entertain amending an amendment in the "Bill of Rights". Changing the US Code would be feasible, assuming a viable law could be developed and enacted.

Meanwhile, teachers can learn hand-to-hand combat with a stapler or other office supplies.

http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/10/...fear-of-facing-slaughter-not-important-to-yo/
I am told what to do if that shooter does in fact enter our classroom: “There is no one procedure that can be recommended in this situation,” the manual informs me with grim honesty, before adding, “f you must fight, fight to win and survive.”

Fight to survive. I am a teacher, with a master’s degree in creative writing, and this is part of my job.

Of course, Trump and others think arming teachers and students is a solution.

So, we should expect fire fights in the class room?
 
  • #21
Astronuc said:
Meanwhile, teachers can learn hand-to-hand combat with a stapler

Maybe one of these:

https://www.ryobitools.com/products/details/577
 
  • #23
Astronuc said:
So, we should expect fire fights in the class room?

Fighting back is not exclusive to other solutions such as mental health checks.
 
  • Like
Likes nsaspook
  • #24
Ben Carson would arm properly trained kindergarten teachers.
 
  • #25
gleem said:
Ben Carson would arm properly trained kindergarten teachers.

I don't see a problem with that. It' really hurts to think about the tragic consequence of the insane coming into a school with weapons not teachers.
 
  • #27
The guy is a piece of work like most politicians but it doesn't change the fact that these insane people are picking 'soft' targets for their final acts. I think part of the problem is that they can just take over and command large masses of people at will with little consequence for their actions until the police show up much later. I don't want to see teachers armed as a solution but the thought of armed teachers protecting children is not abhorrent to me.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Ben Carson's reason for gun control and for possession of automatic weapons is given in his book "A More Perfect Union". He writes: "people have a right to any type of weapon they can legally obtain in order to protect themselves. They would be at a great disadvantage if they were attacked by an overly aggressive government and all they had to defend themselves with were minor firearms."

Does He really fear an attack from our government. Did our founding fathers fear that too?
 
  • #29
gleem said:
Ben Carson's reason for gun control and for possession of automatic weapons is given in his book

This is a side show deflecting blame from the person that committed this horrible crime. Ben Carson is nobody going nowhere.

I live near and have children of mine that graduated (years earlier) from the site of a school shooting in Oregon, http://koin.com/2014/06/10/shots-fired-at-troutdales-reynolds-high-school/ Oregon has no loop-holes for current background checks (I support) , you can possesses and own REAL automatic weapons (I support), carry concealed (I support) and even legally buy and open carry switchblade knives(I support). We now have legal POT in the state (I support) and can walk into a airport to fly inside the state with it in your possession in view of a TSA agent (I love it) .

Don't expect a knee jerk reaction on restrictions of freedom of any kind in this state. I want it to stop but I'm not for shredding the Constitution in the process.
 
  • #30
nsaspook said:
This is a side show deflecting blame from the person that committed this horrible crime. Ben Carson is nobody going nowhere.
While I hope you are right, he could very well be the next president. According to realclearpolitics (who uses aggregate polling), he is currently second in the polling among republicans, only trailing trump, who many believe cannot win the nomination. He is also leading Hilary in head to head matchups. So yeah, he may very well be the frontrunner to becoming our next president.
 
  • #31
gleem said:
...
Does He really fear an attack from our government.
Off the top of my head, I can think of six democracies turned into tyrannies by internal force in the last 150 yrs. France 1871, 2nd Spanish Republic, Weimar Germany, Italy in the several decades before WWI (~1861 to 1922), Taisho Japan, and Russia in the decade or so before Putin. I doubt any of those calamities are likely to befall the US any time soon, but also I doubt the advent of twitter and Miley Cyrus make the US forever immune to these kinds of events.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
I find it ironic that a book titled " A more perfect Union" is proposing that both ( all) sides should be armed ( "hi honey what's for dinner", "salad", "But I want steak", "draw").
Next - Ben Carson is a gifted person, NeuroSurgery is a gift, but not a particularly intellectual pursuit, everyone seems to be holding to this "he is a successful doctor, a brain surgeon - he must be a great thinker!" - that is flat out wrong - surgeons are mechanics - they learned how things are supposed to go together to make them work, the better you put them together the better a surgeon you are. Not to say there are not brilliant surgeons, but you can be an excellent surgeon - and really pretty dumb. (Think plastic surgery - it is a skill - not brilliance).
As for the gun issue - as a pretty hard core liberal, I fear that it is the American Love Affair with the gun as an idol / symbol of power that needs to change. I agree it is not the gun, it is the person, there will always be the outliers, but there are also accidents, crimes of passion ( the #1 motive ?). But gun "rights" have become this political line in the sand, with people, families and kids being indoctrinated that this (gun) is : A) Your god given right, 2) Your only defense against the tyranny of the world around you and the big bad government - 3) We (law abiding gun owners) are not the problem, it is everyone else.
It is a cultural issue...in my view (Beyond any God does not think you are entitled to a gun rational response) - in America, life is so much better than the fear mongers would have you to believe, crime is so much lower than - ever? We loose more kids to driving deaths than crime, and more law abiding families are affected by gun accidents and "in the family " violence than - random crime or the government needing a strong defensive front.

They provide little to no social value - they separate us. But it is not the gun, it is how we view it.

OK rant over
 
  • #33
Windadct said:
you can be an excellent surgeon - and really pretty dumb
I get what you are saying, but I disagree. Maybe it's relative but any board certified surgeon is pretty brilliant to me. Ben Carson was the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. That isn't like being an oil change mechanic any way you stretch it. That being said I agree with Ryan's earlier comments that he might not have received much or any education in evolutionary biology.
 
  • #34
I get your point or position but I still challenge the assumption, that a JH position is sainthood, and you can be a great surgeon and not really that bright. My brother did his post doc at MIT In micro-Bio - and all any Med Student wanted to know is "is this going to be on the test" - he was so frustrated that clearly bright (in fact brilliant) students did not want to expand their understanding, but just learn the facts achieve the next step - a person of moderate intelligence, and strong work ethic and memorization ability can get though. I have a VERY hard time listening to what Ben says and believing he is in any way intellectual - he may think he is and takes the position that he is, but his conviction and lack of humility ( think willingness to learn a different viewpoint) is just shocking. He is playing his success card - as a measure of his intelligence, and ability to lead - meanwhile taking a stance that is anti-scientific.

Added - The organizational political influences in university faculty are shocking.
 
  • #35
Windadct said:
But it is not the gun, it is how we view it.

OK rant over

My rant.
Correct, and that's how we should work on this problem. I see the current opposition to firearms in America as a force much like the effort to criminalize drugs (including alcohol) early last century by true believing Prohibitionist zealots of all kinds. It started a destructive cycle of lawlessness that's just being erased by the decriminalization of milder drugs. The war on guns is starting to create a culture chasm in this country by trying to marginalize a very large segment of the population as fiends or monsters who don't care about children and who only love the 'drug' of the worthless evil gun. IMO this is completely the wrong way to solve the problem of mass shooting or crime in general in our culture with access to firearms. I believe what's needed is just the opposite. We (Instead of the fantasy driven media of the day) need actually educate children and citizens nationwide about gun safety as with any potentially dangerous tool along with the mental health issues associated with access to guns. Instead of education we seem to be creating a new type of personality disorder where learning responsible gun ownership or having guns is seen as bad in some parts of the country. Prohibition didn't work then and it won't work now in America.

The criminal aspect of gun access is a completely different subject as almost all mass shooting guns were obtained by a person who had a criminal background check.
Done.
 

Similar threads

Replies
230
Views
28K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
11K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top