Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Oregon School Shooting: the Vet Who Saved His Peers

Oregon School Shooting: the Vet Who Saved His Peers

Bonus VIDEO: smacking down the gun control shills

Yesterday, a 26 year old man loaded a gun and committed mass murder at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. New reports indicate that the man (whose name doesn’t deserve any more ink on this site) killed at least 9 people and injured many more before police neutralized him. Four guns believed to belong to the shooter were recovered at the scene.

Amid the horror comes the story of 30 year-old Chris Mintz, a student and Army veteran who was shot 7 times while trying to protect his classmates from the gunman. That’s his picture at the top of the page—his actions earned him the spot. Mintz reportedly blocked the door to the classroom he was in to prevent the shooter from entering. When the shooter did manage to enter the room, Mintz was shot several times. He is currently recovering in a local hospital and is expected to survive.

More from ABC News:

“I just hope that everyone else is OK,” he told ABC News this morning.

“I’m just worried about everyone else.

The man’s actions in the fatal shooting, where 10 people died and seven, including himself, were injured, did not go unnoticed by his peers.

“He ran to the library and pulled the alarms and he was telling people to run, grabbing people, telling them, ‘You just have to go,'” witness Hannah Miles told ABC News.

“He actually ran back towards the building where the shooting was and he ran back into the building and I don’t know what happened to him,” she said of Mintz.

Mintz’s cousin launched a GoFundMe page to help pay for his ensuing medical bills.

“During the shooting both of his legs were broken and he is going to have to go through a ton of physical therapy,” Mintz’s cousin Derek Bourgeois wrote on the page.

This is what we should be talking about—humans stepping up on behalf of other humans against evil. Instead—as is always the case—we’re once again talking about gun control. President Obama kicked off the debate yesterday before the bodies were cold, and the media quickly followed suit.

Fortunately, our people are better than theirs. This morning Charles C.W. Cooke appeared on MSNBCs Morning Joe and absolutely destroyed the anti-gun lobby’s arguments for more regulations on firearms.

Watch:

Crowder has the transcript:

“Joe Biden doesn’t know how to fix this problem. I don’t know how to fix this problem. I think it’s fair to say you don’t know how to fix this problem. It’s a very complex question in a country with 300 to 350 million guns on the street. The way they talk is as if they have the answer and there are these recalcitrant forces in the country that say ‘no, no, no,’ even though deep down they know their legislation will work. That’s simply not the case. It’s far more complicated than that.”

The panel pushed back, claiming moral authority in spite of a lack of expertise (on anything? Listen to the video, maybe you’ll agree with me on that one) but Cooke didn’t back down.

This is the sort of “dialogue” we need about gun control—especially when every progressive from the president on down is taking to the bully pulpit and insisting that Second Amendment advocates have a default coating of blood on their hands.

Follow Amy on Twitter @ThatAmyMiller

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Charles C.W. Cooke, one of those NR RINO squishes that some idiots here hate, is one of the most effective, articulate and reasoned advocates for the Second Amendment in America.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424962/2nd-amendment-southern-slavery-atlantic-essay-response

As usual, this was a case of not ENOUGH guns.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Ragspierre. | October 2, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying all the wrong remedies.

    Groucho Marx

    jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 2, 2015 at 1:01 pm

    Or too many guns in the hands of mentally disturbed Conservative Repubicans:

    “Oregon college gunman Chris Harper-Mercer was reportedly born in the UK, posed with a gun in a photograph online and appears to have posted material showing support for the Irish Republican Army (IRA).

    He listed hobbies including the internet and “killing zombies”, described his politics as “conservative, republican” and said he was spiritual but not religious.”
    Per BBC report

    If we could reduce the supply of weapons to this considerably disturbed segment of our American populace, just think what a wonderful world this woul be!

      Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 1:13 pm

      Typically, you’ve been punkd.

      Punk. You really need to be MUCH more selective about the bullshit you slurp up.

      The Kennedy’s also supported and support the IRA. Don’t know of any conservative or republican that supports terrorists.

      Radegunda in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 10:24 pm

      Conservative Republicans don’t affiliate with satanism, and they don’t specifically select Christians to shoot first.

      You could call yourself an intelligent person, but it wouldn’t make you one.

        jayjerome66 in reply to Radegunda. | October 3, 2015 at 4:16 pm

        Wasnt the first person killed a Jewish teacher named Lawrence Levine?

          He was shot immediately upon the shooter entering the classroom. THEN he told everyone in the class to get on the ground, and then asked them to stand up and say what religion they were before he started firing.

Chris Mintz stepped up and did the best he could with what he had available, which was basically only his body. It’s a damned shame he didn’t have a firearm or he could have ended the shooter’s rampage without further loss of life.

People should be angry. They should be angry that those students were made into defenseless targets by an ideology that would rather have a dozen victims than one hero.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Sanddog. | October 2, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    Yep, I fully believe that even a snuby .38 would have changed the outcome of this dramatically.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 2, 2015 at 5:44 pm

      That proves my point. Nobody needs anything more than a 6-shooter.

        No, it doesn’t prove your point Sammy. Unless you think this event which in hindsight we now know involved only a single shooter, no accomplices, is the be all and end all of self-defense scenarios.

    jayjerome66 in reply to Sanddog. | October 2, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    Or the mental-case shooter, who wore body armor, could have easily dispatched some one only armed with a hand gun, confiscated that weapon and used it in addition to his other Arsenal to kill more people.

    Is the answer therefore to insist all students are armed and wear body armor to class, or at a cost of multi billions have highly trained units of the military fully armed with automatic weapons at every school or university in the US? Also at every church, and every movie theater, and every sporting event where the mentally deficient would go looking for easy targets?

    Or a more sane, realistic, and effective solution: make it much tougher for potential screw-ups to acquire guns. Double Duh!

      Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 1:23 pm

      So, you should be prohibited from being able to acquire a gun legally?

      I’m totally down with that!

      jdjohnson50 in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 1:38 pm

      “Or the mental-case shooter, who wore body armor, could have easily dispatched some one only armed with a hand gun, confiscated that weapon and used it in addition to his other Arsenal to kill more people.”

      Like the two body armored assailants in Garlan, Texas? The ones armed with semi-auto rifles who were shot and killed by a single person with a handgun?

        jayjerome66 in reply to jdjohnson50. | October 2, 2015 at 4:49 pm

        Heartfelt thumbs up for that guy, taking out those a-hole Islamic dickheads!

        But he was an armed security guard (also an off duty cop) hired to patrol the Garland complex, where an event was in progress to benefit the French Cartoonists. The Muslim radicals who wanted to shoot up the event drove up to the area where the security guard was stationed. They got out and opened fire. An unarmed guard was wounded; the guard armed with the pistol, who trained for just this kind of happenstance, shot them dead (may 40 Virgins spit in their faces!).

        The guard did what he was trained to do.

        Again, I have no problem training more civilians to protect against public shootings. But only if they’re throughly vetted, mentally, criminally, and politically swear never to vote for a deviant like Ted Cruz. (I guess that would exclude RagBrain from a right to carry gun permit)

      tom swift in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 2:41 pm

      confiscated that weapon and used it in addition to his other Arsenal to kill more people.

      In this situation, the perp was able to shoot and kill unarmed people. When someone with a handgun appeared, he died in short order.

      Obvious conclusion: the sooner a firearm in somebody else’s hands appears on the scene, the sooner the incident ends, and the smaller the number of victims.

      No hypothetical postulates needed, no wishful thinking involved; just simple observed fact and straightforward logic. It really isn’t all that hard to follow.

        Voyager in reply to tom swift. | October 2, 2015 at 10:45 pm

        This is, to my understanding why police procedure for handling active shooters has shifted from a “gather forces” stance to a “confront ASAP” stance.

        When you take a look at the statistics, when someone armed confronts a mass shooter, or attempted mass shooter, they generally shoot themselves, and the sooner someone, anybody really, gets there to confront them, the sooner they can start getting the victims to the hospital, and save some lives.

        jayjerome66 in reply to tom swift. | October 3, 2015 at 2:37 pm

        “When someone with a handgun appeared, he died in short order.”

        He died after a lot of someones arrived: armed police. And I’m not sure what kind of weapons they had. But from listening to news reports, the timeline suggests it took the cops five or six minutes to reach the scene, after which a five minute gun battle commenced. Ended with the killer shooting himself.

        That’s not a relative short order.

      Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 3:08 pm

      “Is the answer therefore to insist all students are armed and wear body armor to class, or at a cost of multi billions have highly trained units of the military fully armed with automatic weapons at every school or university in the US? Also at every church, and every movie theater, and every sporting event where the mentally deficient would go looking for easy targets?”

      We note your usual platoon of straw men.

      But, naw. Ten percent of a typical class room of 30 having firearms and knowing the basics of their use is all that would be needed.

      They don’t even really need to put the purp down. All they need to do is give him/her something to think about besides being able to walk up and execute someone.

        jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 2, 2015 at 3:24 pm

        I don’t have any problem with licensing more people to carry concealed weapons, Dingbat. But if you don’t weed out those with mental problems and a propensity toward violence, you’ll end up with a larger population of armed mentally deficient people who are licensed to carry weapons. Duhduhduhduh.

        And can’t you just see the fireworks in a classroom if three or four armed students or teachers confronted an armed intruder (who turns out to be a janitor with a broom not a gun) pull their weapons and open fire?

        Your problem is you can’t think straight. Typical ideolog mental malfunction. You’d definitely be on the lunatic watch list for weapon exclusion.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 3:32 pm

          “I don’t have any problem with licensing more people to carry concealed weapons,”

          Liar

          “Dingbat.”

          Projection

          “But if you don’t weed out those with mental problems and a propensity toward violence,”

          Now define “mental problems” and “propensity towards violence”? Not your mental problems by the way, I think we have a pretty good handle on those.

          “And can’t you just see the fireworks in a classroom if three or four armed students or teachers confronted an armed intruder (who turns out to be a janitor with a broom not a gun) pull their weapons and open fire?”

          Yea, because that happens all the time in other area’s where guns are common? Hyperbole isn’t evidence.

          Your last paragraph just proves that you know you don’t have a real argument since basically all your assertions come down to Hyperbole, unrealistic situations, and personal attacks. Typical liberal.

          jj, you insist on coming here to prove what a complete fool and moron you are.

          Hint. Just making up BS scenario’s that do not occur doesn’t make for any kind of lucid argument.

          Vascaino in reply to jayjerome66. | October 3, 2015 at 9:56 am

          ” But if you don’t weed out those with mental problems and a propensity toward violence, ”

          But that means “profiling” with your “Human Rights” crowd deadly against it.

          jayjerome66 in reply to jayjerome66. | October 3, 2015 at 1:59 pm

          CLUSTER F**K REPLY:

          Gremlin1974: “Yea, because that happens all the time in other area’s where guns are common? Hyperbole isn’t evidence.”

          Here’s an exercise for you in non-hyperbolic investigation – Google “innocent bystanders shot” and see how many hits you get. What’s interesting is the number of innocent bystanders who are shot by police (supposedly trained for public confrontations with armed perps). Here’s one example:

          NYPD: 9 shooting bystander victims hit by police

          https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjABahUKEwj8usCF46bIAhWQW4gKHazQA-g&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fus%2F2012%2F08%2F25%2Fnypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire%2F&usg=AFQjCNF_T7aEQv9Q-lXDCbHQQaJQoSewZA

          If veteran patrolmen like the ones described above could accidentally shoot 9 bystanders after a single gunman pulled a single gun, are you seriously suggesting collage-age civilians would be more clearheaded in a situation with a determined mass murderer armed with automatic weapons?

          And why would you accuse me of lying when I say I don’t have any problem with licensing more people to carry concealed weapons? I own ‘weapons-of-death’ which are within easy reach: a double-barrel pump shotgun, and two hand-guns; more then enough guns for a two-person household.

          And compared to your steep rightward slant, sure I’m a liberal; but so would be anyone a millimeter left of you, meaning 90% of the American populace.
          —-
          Barry: “jj, you insist on coming here to prove what a complete fool and moron you are.”

          Just following in your illustrious footsteps, Barry.
          (again, don’t forget to do you homework; you teacher notified us you’re failing basic reading comprehension).
          —-
          Vascaino: (on weeding out mental defectives) “But that means “profiling” with your “Human Rights” crowd deadly against it”

          I’m in favor of profiling, so screw those Human Rights kooks (oh boy, guess I’m gonna lose my Liberal credentials here). And those Human Rights extremists haven’t complained about having to pass psychological mental scrutiny to secure a Federally approved Commercial Driver’s License. That requires passing medical test, which includes psychological ‘profiling.’ Applicants don’t qualify if they have:

          “Mental or Functional Disorder’ including mental, nervous, organic or functional disease or psychiatric disorder likely to interfere with his/her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.”

          Why not have psychiatric disorder requirements that gun owners have IQs higher then their belt size, and don’t exhibit propensities for violence or suicidal tendencies (most of the mass shooters are committing suicide-by-cop-execution)?

          The new American Dream: a chicken in every microwave, a virus-free cell-phone in every pocket, and three guns per family-of-two in every lock-tight gun safe (ok, some under the pillow).

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | October 3, 2015 at 3:16 pm

          I own ‘weapons-of-death’ which are within easy reach: a double-barrel pump shotgun, and two hand-guns; more then enough guns for a two-person household.
          ————————————————-

          Send us a link for your “double-barrel pump shotgun” you lying SOS.

          Also send us a link for your “psychological exam” component for a commercial license. Because there isn’t one, except via a self-reporting section on page one…

          http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/medical/medical-examination-report-commercial-driver-fitness-determination

          You lying SOS.

          But, AGAIN, nobody has a RIGHT to operate a commercial vehicle on the public roads. Do they, you lying SOS?

          jayjerome66 in reply to jayjerome66. | October 3, 2015 at 5:44 pm

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uI8IV6hJb0

          I’ll sell you mine for $2000. Plus you’ll get an autographed photo of me Giving you the middle finger

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | October 3, 2015 at 6:00 pm

          First, you have to send me a certificate from a FFL dealing showing you OWN one, you lying SOS! AND the date on which it was acquired!

          HAHAHAHAHAHA… LOVE it…!!!

          You can forward the certificate via the Professor. I will NOT hold my breath!

          Gremlin1974 in reply to jayjerome66. | October 3, 2015 at 9:57 pm

          “are you seriously suggesting collage-age civilians would be more clearheaded in a situation”

          Nope, I am not saying they would be “more clearheaded”. However, civilians who use a firearm is self defense rarely hit innocents for several reasons.

          Firs let me link a couple of articles for you. It even uses your linked story about the 9 innocents shot by police.

          https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/who-are-the-greater-threats-to-public-safety-police-or-carry-permit-holders/

          Basically it comes down to a simple point, civilians that carry for self defense train much more often than police, at least as a general rule. Most cops only shoot once or twice a year, Until a recent shoulder injury in early august for which I will soon have surgery, I shot at least once every 2 weeks (Yes, I realize I am on the upward curve). when I shoot I shoot at least 100 rounds through each of my handguns that I use for concealed carry. I also use a range that allows you to draw from a holster. Most police qualifications take less than 100 rounds in total.

          Also, civilians tend to shoot fewer rounds than police.

          Just because a police officer is a “veteran” doesn’t make him a handgun marksman. Many police have never even had to draw their handguns while on duty. I have a friend that has been a cop for 15 and has drawn his weapon but has never hand to actually point it at someone and he will freely admit that I am a much better shot than he is.

          Read the article, it is enlightening.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to jayjerome66. | October 3, 2015 at 10:01 pm

          “’ll sell you mine for $2000. Plus you’ll get an autographed photo of me Giving you the middle finger”

          You do realize that the video you linked it actually from the SHOT Show 2015. So unless you purchased that gun in the past 2 months or so, the chances of you having one are pretty slim. I am not saying that you don’t have one, but well, it would surprise me.

          Frankly, it’s pretty much a useless show weapon.

          jayjerome66 in reply to jayjerome66. | October 3, 2015 at 10:53 pm

          Ragbrain asked for a link to the gun as if it didn’t exist (I’ve heard that from other people who say there no such thing as a double barrel pump). So I linked the first video I found via uTube.

          Me and my gun-collecting neighbor each bought one last year (we got them for $200 off list, which was $1400 if I remember correctly). I’ve only shot mine twice, and I’m not a firearm expert, but it felt good to me. I keep it next to my bed, in a golf club cart. At this stage of my life I want a gun I can use when waking bleary-eyed from sleep, that I can grab and aim and not worry about having to place an accurate shot in an intruder’s torso.

          I think I have a right to own guns for self protection. But that doesn’t mean I think everyone should own them. Or own whatever or however many they want to own. To my mind, there are entire classes of people here in the USA who shouldn’t own them. My neighbor pal I mentioned owns about 30 guns, mostly antique hand guns and rifles. He thinks the same way on it I do: screw the 2nd Amendment; the only people who should be allowed to own guns are those with steady jobs, own their own homes, and are Dodger fans.

        jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 3, 2015 at 4:24 pm

        “But, naw. Ten percent of a typical class room of 30 having firearms and knowing the basics of their use is all that would be needed.”

        But wouldn’t that require half a million armed people in the classrooms of the nation each semester?

        Fess up: how much stock do you own in the firearm industry?

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | October 3, 2015 at 5:03 pm

          “But wouldn’t that require half a million armed people in the classrooms of the nation each semester?”

          Dunno. Put up your math, supporting your position vis-a-vis college-level classrooms, lying SOS.

          Next, show that there are not enough attendees to satisfy the need for 10% to be legal carriers of firearms.

          (Like your desperate hunt for ANY misuse of “parasite” WRT the normal development of a human being in their mother, this WILL be delicious…!!!)

          jayjerome66 in reply to jayjerome66. | October 3, 2015 at 6:02 pm

          I did the math, using 10% of a class size of 30, which is 3 armed participants per class cohort.

          Now it’s your turn to look up how many students were estimated to sign up for classes at all the US colleges and universities (I did). And then calculate how many classes on average a student takes (I did that too). And then calculate how many armed class participants you’d need.

          My calculations came to half a million, rounded off.

          That many mostly young testosterone percolating males with concealed weapons will definitely be a boon to university and college campuses nationwide. I’m sure you’ll be nominafed for the Civilian Medal of Stupod Ideas for it.

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | October 3, 2015 at 6:14 pm

          No. You didn’t. You lie.

          Show your work. WITH links.

          jayjerome66 in reply to jayjerome66. | October 3, 2015 at 7:11 pm

          Come on Putzalong, I gave you everything but total yearly enrollment.

          Be a good little worm, and burrow down into the depths of Google and find the number.

          That’s a good boy; now down; now roll over – now STOP licking yourself like that!

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | October 3, 2015 at 7:23 pm

          No. You didn’t. You lie.

          Show your work. WITH links.

          Putzholster.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to jayjerome66. | October 3, 2015 at 10:06 pm

          “I did the math, using 10% of a class size of 30, which is 3 armed participants per class cohort.”

          Yea, but there never would actually be that many, not even half of that, most likely. But as far as “young testosterone percolating males” with guns, so what? I have been carrying since I was 21, I have been shooting since I was 10, I have never shot a person while in a civilian capacity, even when I was one of those “young testosterone percolating males”.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 3:25 pm

      “who wore body armor, could have easily dispatched some one only armed with a hand gun,”

      Well as someone who has taken 2 rounds in ballistic armor, I can tell your only knowledge of how body armor works is from Hollywood. So let me attempt to educate the ignorant here. Even with body armor any modern round above .38 caliber you don’t just shrug off like in the movies.

      The first thing that happens is that you realize that you are on your ass and not real sure how you got there. Then the pain hits, just because the round didn’t penetrate doesn’t mean zero damage. Then if hit in the chest you have to get yourself breathing again, when your lungs don’t want to cooperate.”body armor” isn’t a force field.

      Also you have to take into account this person is a cowardly turd at heart, I would be willing to bet if he caught 2 in the chest of his body armor he would pee on himself and run like the honor-less cowardly turd that he was. Also anything better than a 9mm would have probably put him on his ass for long enough that he could have been subdued.

      My experience was with a .44 magnum into ballistic armor from 22 feet away. It hit the upper left corner of my trauma plate and bounced off to the left, took out my flashlight on my rig as it moved along. It knocked me smooth out, period, 10 count, done. I came to due to the application of those horrid ammonia capsules that medics love to try to cram up your nose. I didn’t even know about the 2nd hit, because I was already unconscious when it hit me in the abdomen of my armor. If you want to feel something similar just get behind a mule and do something to make it kick you in the chest.

      These crazies wear armor because they believe it is magic, they and you are wrong.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 2, 2015 at 3:34 pm

        In that situation a couple of hundred yards may as well have been the next county, even if they could have gotten to the area.

    Roux in reply to Sanddog. | October 2, 2015 at 1:43 pm

    He’s a hero but unlike Ahmed the clock assembler, he won’t be getting any invites to the White House.

    I’ve seen that there were several concealed carry permit holders a couple of hundred yards away but they were kept from responding. Sad.

Not going to take a lecture about gun control from someone who:

1. practically invited Russian guns into Ukraine and Syria.

2. gave a Mid East Theocracy and its terror groups the financial and legal means to create ICBMs that can reach Time Square.

3. tells us not to politicize Islam whenever a few armed Islamists shoot journalists and cartoonists. Or politicize illegal aliens when a few of them murder citizens.

    Valerie in reply to Aucturian. | October 2, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    Add to your list

    Forced supply of illegal weapons to Mexican cartels that have been involved in at least 200 murders in our neighboring country, and at least one documented death of a United States agent.

      AZ_Langer in reply to Valerie. | October 2, 2015 at 1:46 pm

      Besides Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, it was finally confirmed in a House Oversight Committee hearing that the attack in Mexico that killed ICE Agent Jaime Zapata involved Operation Fast & Furious weapons.

        Thanks for remembering Jaime AZ_Langer. He always seems to be forgotten whenever F&F is written about. Victor Avila was also badly wounded in the attack and he’s always forgotten.
        Holder should be in prison for the F&F crimes.

    Ragspierre in reply to Aucturian. | October 2, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    Everyone who heard that execrable liar…Barracula…should have noted the following…

    1. there’s a mass shooting every weekend in gun controlled RED cities across the land

    2. he gave lip service to supporting the rights of people to own guns…including for self-defense

    3. he ONLY suggested the Australian model, which is gun confiscation

    4. more people died yesterday in a single C-130 crash in Afghanistan, which he’s apparently not read about in the newspapers.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 2, 2015 at 12:55 pm

      Sorry…BLUE cities, dominated by Collectivists who sought to disarm people…

      jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 3, 2015 at 7:17 pm

      “3. he ONLY suggested the Australian model, which is gun confiscation”

      There ya go again, LYING by omission.
      Tell the whole truth, and nothing but the whole truth, you scuzbucket.
      ( if you tell the whole truth I’ll tell you the significience of my use of ‘scuzbucket” to describe you)

For one, we should stop framing this as a problem in gun control and start acknowledging that we have a problem with respect for the culture and society at large.

Everyone of these people have got up and decided they were going to make a bunch of other people as miserable as they themselves felt (rightly or wrongly).

When did it begin that people decided they had the right to take their being miserable out on society at large. And particularly usually with people they don’t know and who didn’t know them.

Could it be that our drive to deny the positive effects of a belief in God and to make it seem that every problem is solvable and that someone being unhappy or unsatisfied is somehow someone else’s fault or problem and that it’s okay for them to take their misery out on others?

Has our murder of millions of babies also perhaps eroded a belief that every life is a gift and to be cherished and protected? Has our daily 24/7 onslaught of crime and violence on TV begun to have an impact on the young who are drenched in it since birth?

Do we stop and make some rational decisions such as not allowing a public institution refuse to allow it’s citizens to exercise their right to self protection? Do we stop and recognize that the police can’t prevent crime but that citizens on the scene can?

But we’re not allowed to make those arguments because of the very media that pumps out the crime and violence and demonstrates to it’s watchers that the solution to everyone’s problems is violence.

Time to hold the media to account. How can they claim (by demanding large amounts of money) that they can sell anything and then turn around and claim that showing crime and violence doesn’t effect anyone?

And the vultures of the media and in politics need to be slapped back into their sewers and rational adults take over the discussion.

    jayjerome66 in reply to jakee308. | October 2, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    How about just making it harder for people with mental problems to get guns. Duh.

      healthguyfsu in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 1:02 pm

      Propose something substantive (not a vague remark) that would have prevented this…you won’t get it from Obama/Biden. I’ll wait.

        jayjerome66 in reply to healthguyfsu. | October 2, 2015 at 3:30 pm

        Sorry to keep you waiting. It’s lunch time in the City.

        Here’s a rough outline of my suggested criteria for gun ownership license:

        The applicant be over 21, a US resident for more than three years, have passed a mental and physical health exam, background checks by the Police, and shooting exams and courses at a licensed gun range. If given a permit, the holder is allowed to order a single firearm with a one-time supply of 50 bullets from a licensed dealer. He/she is required to retake the licensing exam and undergo testing at a gun range every three years. He also has to prove he has a safe at home to store the gun.

        Like it? No? Why not? They’re the requirements for gun permits in Israel. Periodically the requirements are loosened in areas where citizens are under frequent terrorist attack, but overall that’s the law for private gun ownership.

        In fact, if you check out our other civilized Western allies, you’ll see we are the only nation to allow the citizenry to glut their homes and persons with bang bangs that kill kill other persons so indiscriminately.

        Less guns (no, I didn’t say no guns) would be a positive sane development. And I’ll willing to give a thousand to one odds (in dollars) the government doesn’t enslave us afterward. Any takers?

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 4:36 pm

          How ’bout the Swiss, liar?

          (It’s fun thinking of you crawling all over the internet to substantiate yet another of your lies!)

          You DO know that the US enjoys one of the LOWEST of all national rates for homicide by firearm. AND it gets ridiculously low if you correct for some racial groups?

          Poor, stupid, lying SOS…

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 4:41 pm

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE

          Eat that, JJ(sad)trombone!

          Fortunately, people a lot smarter than you figured out a long time ago, that an amendment to the constitution was needed to protect us from the killers that wish to disarm us.

          All your BS is simply unconstitutional.

      Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 1:07 pm

      How about driving cars or commercial vehicles?

        jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 2, 2015 at 3:11 pm

        How about a licensing test for guns as comprehensive as the ones for commercial driver’s and truckers? Humm? With the same periods for renewal? Huuuuuuuuum?

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 3:14 pm

          Is operating a commercial vehicle or any motor vehicle a natural right, you stupid POS?

          Did you want to give me a hmmmm job?

          Gremlin1974 in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 3:38 pm

          Sure, right after we have a test like that for people to be able to vote. Oh, and I mean a civic’s test the “school house rock” version. But if we did that, as you know, we would never have another Democrap president.

          jayjerome66 in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 5:00 pm

          ” you want to give me a hmmmm job?Did you want to give me a hmmmm job?”

          Raggy, you promised to seek professional help for your troublesome desires for male on male sexual congress; but once again asking for sexual homoerotic favors on this site indicates you’ve decided to let those desires continue to percolate.

          But not to worry, the Pope will give you a hug next time he sees you, and absolve you of your fantasy sins.

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 5:13 pm

          YOU’RE a MALE?

          Funny, I just never associated anything masculine with you.

          Still see no evidence of that, but if you say so.

          You shouldn’t go around offering hum-jobs, tease…

          Maybe we could license women to have sex. They have to promise never to consider abortion.
          We’d save millions of babies.
          We could also have a test to allow people to post on the internet, but then we’d miss your less than stellar ideology.

      Sanddog in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 1:08 pm

      What type of mental problems? I have a much better idea: Let’s exclude from the debate anyone who has mental issues such as narcissism, a belief they are entitled to other people’s money, a burning hatred for the rights of individuals… and pretty much anyone who voted for Barack.

      Define “mental problem”….It’s harder than you think.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Roux. | October 2, 2015 at 7:38 pm

        What they mean by “Mental Problems” is any thought process that disagrees with their grand design, such as conservative thought.

      Vancomycin in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 1:39 pm

      I’m all for making it completely illegal to own a gun if you voted for Obama. That would eliminate almost all those with the “mental problems” you’re going for, jackass.

      TX-rifraph in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 1:46 pm

      “Mental problems” is a fuzzy concept that cannot ever have an accurate measurement or an absolute go/no conclusion. No competent risk professional attempts to focus on probability when it is so soft.

      One must focus on minimizing the impact by arming the students and teachers. This would have been over in seconds as has been demonstrated repeatedly when the shooter is confronted by an armed good guy. Sometimes cops may be an hour away if they are all tied up on other emergencies. It does happen.

      The nonsense you push is directly accountable for these safe hunting zones where innocent people are killed. You encourage more of this as you participate in this “disarm the people” nonsense. I really have a hard time believing you are that ignorant. Your agenda that is shared by others of your persuasion helped kill these people by making sure they were defenseless and the killer was safe.

      TX-rifraph in reply to jayjerome66. | October 2, 2015 at 1:53 pm

      JJ66, you speak abstractly about this slaughter. It is very concrete for the people who suffer at the hands of a killer. Leftists “love” mankind but care not for individual men and women. These were individuals who were killed and injured and they could have stopped it. Yet, you think they should be exploited for your agenda.

      worst US school killings so far done with a car bomb.
      only cowards and fools blame the tool for the actions of the individual.
      I get the impression you are both of those.

      more people murdered each year with blunt objects than firearms, gonna start up a hammer and rock buyback program in your town?

“What is it that you’re proposing?”

They can’t answer, because the answer — the abrogation of the 2nd Amendment — is too revelatory. That’s what they want. Yesterday. They have ZEROBeyond that

    Gremlin1974 in reply to pesanteur. | October 2, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    Yep, also see how the liberal bobble head when challenged went directly to; ” We need PASSION.” as if having strong emotion is better than analytical logical reasoning.

… (sorry) they have ZERO interest in a good-faith discussion toward a complex diagnosis of the problem and long-term solutions which ensure the protection of our Constitutional liberties.

    Your right. All we get is a march which completely ignores the 9th Amendment.

    AZ_Langer in reply to pesanteur. | October 2, 2015 at 1:11 pm

    I would clarify that to constitutionally protected liberty. The items in our Bill of Rights were added to guarantee that our birthrights/natural rights/God-given rights not be usurped by the federal government.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=BDF76CF8-2C35-4654-9F68-DCB35A6F1F39

“Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from what we’re at now,” Biden told reporters after meeting with Senate Democrats in the Capitol. “But there are things that we can do demonstrably can do that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self defense and recreation that can save some lives.”

As a staffer tried unsuccessfully to cut Biden off repeatedly, the vice president argued to reporters that none of the proposals would infringe on constitutional rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTyoppK_aDM

    DaveGinOly in reply to Neo. | October 2, 2015 at 12:49 pm

    Short of annulling the protection of the Second Amendment (the right exists with or without it), what the anti-gunners want is a set of laws so complex that legal ownership of firearms and compliance with regulations is virtually impossible or of sufficient difficulty that every gun owner will live under the constant threat of arrest for even the slightest deviation from what is prescribed by law. Such a situation would make firearms ownership as unattractive as possible and discourage the exercise of the right. A generation or two under such a regime would effectively eliminate the personal ownership of firearms. Such a scheme has the advantage of allowing them to insist that the right to arms has not been infringed, because legal ownership is still nominally possible.

I always love watching Charles C. W. Cook because for some reason the gun grabbers start out afraid of him. I love how the anti-gun bobble head was like; “I want a CIVIL discussion.” What did he think Cook was gonna turn to magic smoke and come across the camera to his remote location?

Mr. Cooke is pointing out effective gun control would necessitate the forced seizure of hundreds of millions of guns. Oops.

“Err, that’s not really what we want to talk about, Mr. Cooke. What we need is PASSION! Oh, look! A squirrel!”

Nicely done, that.

Question:

Which would lead a killer intent on garnering a high body count for notoriety to visit…

“Warning: this is a GUN FREE ZONE. Violators will be prosecuted!” or

“Warning: there are armed, trained killers on duty here, and within the student body. Mind your manners.”

The media has conveniently forgotten that the forced drugging of males in the primary and secondary schools are a leading cause of these crazies going off the deep end.

I say, let’s add this to the 4473:” Do you intend to use this or other firearms in a mass shooting. yes no”. TAAA DAAAAH! We have “done something” and other than having to re-format the 4473 file, won’t cost anything.

Mika Brzezinski demonstrates that we’ve powered right through all the “commonsense” gun laws and now the left wants to impose stupid and unworkable gun laws.

When she was arguing with Charles Cooke she brought up the Washington state voter initiative that now requires universal background checks; you have to go to a gun dealer and get a background check before any gun “sale, loan, or transfer.”

Great. They just outlawed hunter safety. How is that commonsense?

Let me explain. “Transfer” is an undefined term. It may very well mean simply handing a firearm to someone else to hold. In fact, other vile states (New York) have used the term to mean exactly that. Here’s the problem. When hunting you often have to hand your buddy your rifle or shotgun while negotiating an obstacle. The first person crosses a fence, for instance. Then the second person hands both firearms to the first, crosses the fence, takes possession back of his firearm, and you continue hunting.

After the the voter initiative passed in Washington, some sheriffs were giving the press their reaction. None of them could say that the simple hunter safety scenario above would still be clearly legal under this new law. They didn’t think it would be illegal, but they would need the state AG’s guidance on the matter.

Which means a new AG could interpret the law differently.

I’m picking on New York, and I could be wrong, but a couple of years back they or some other east coast state proposed a universal background check law that specifically outlawed the above hunter safety practice. Because the only place where you could “transfer” a firearm to someone else was a designated shooting range. There you could hand your firearm to someone else. Since no successful hunting takes place on shooting ranges, hunters in that state would have been SOL.

Also, keep in mind that when Obama was talking about “commonsense” gun laws he was praising Australia. Which banned and confiscated firearms on a massive scale.

That’s the left’s idea of “commonsense.”

Conservative Beaner | October 2, 2015 at 6:04 pm

Well done soldier, well done.

Anyone got a link to Mr. Mintz’ GoFundMe?

There’s only one “common semse” solution. Eliminate “gun-free” zones.

Wow, looks like the site picked up a Troll. Pretty dumb one, but most of them are.

    Yep. And unfortunately when people gleefully feed a troll, you don’t end up with an enhanced conversation in the comments thread. All you end up with is a happy, satisfied, well-fed troll.

      jayjerome66 in reply to Amy in FL. | October 4, 2015 at 11:53 am

      Your definition of a troll, Amy, is anyone who expresses opinions different from your far Right Lockstep Mindset. The kind of ‘enhanced conversation’ you want to have, is the kind that reinforces your narrow focus of reality and doesn’t challenge it. It’s like the George Patton quote (paraphrased): “if everyone in the room is thinking alike, no one’s thinking.” Get it? Got it? Good!

      PS: I seldom come away from these comments feeling happy and well satisfied; mostly the opposite; depressed at the insular doctrinaire stubborn conformity of opinion

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Amy in FL. | October 4, 2015 at 2:23 pm

      Actually as someone who is often accused of feeding trolls, I would like to offer a different take on responding to “trolls”.

      I generally do so because I want the opposite opinion to theirs to be heard as well, that way people may actually decide to think and make up their own minds, but they can’t do that if they don’t hear both sides.

I made a simple statement of fact, the first person murdered was the Jewish teacher. Why would that earn any thumbs-down?f

And Amy, yeah, this was one messed up screwball, we can agree on that, right?

He was a student in that class and obviously knew the teacher, and shot him first; then others followed. He was a psychological horror, and the world would be better off if he was aborted at birth, right?

The kind of mental misfit who shouldn’t have ever been allowed to own guns, right? You agree with that, don’t you?

So the question is, how do we weed these poisonous creatures from the population of gun owners, right?

Any ideas how to do that besides the usual conservative shrug of the shoulders chestnut rationalization that this is the price we pay for a free society?

“So the question is, how do we weed these poisonous creatures from the population of gun owners, right?

Any ideas how to do that besides the usual conservative shrug of the shoulders chestnut rationalization that this is the price we pay for a free society?”

Eugene Volokh provides a better answer to your dilemma of than I ever could, JJ:

Now I generally don’t support the “don’t just stand there, do something” school of criminal law. When all the proposals seem likely not to work, or do more harm than good, implementing one of them for the sake of “doing something” strikes me as a mistake.

But let me offer a concrete analogy (recognizing that, as with all analogies, it’s analogous and not identical).

Every day, about 30 people are killed in the U.S. in gun homicides or gun accidents (not counting gun suicides or self-inflicted accidental shootings). And every day, likely about 30 people are killed in homicides where the killer was under the influence of alcohol, plus alcohol-related drunk driving accidents and alcohol-related accidents where the driver wasn’t drunk but the alcohol was likely a factor (again not including those who died in accidents caused by their own alcohol consumption). If you added in gun suicides on one side and those people whose alcohol consumption killed themselves on the other, the deaths would tilt much more on the side of alcohol use, but I generally like to segregate deaths of the user from deaths of others.

So what are we going to do about it? When are we going to ban alcohol? When are we going to institute more common-sense alcohol-control measures?

Well, we tried, and the conventional wisdom is that the cure was worse than the disease — which is why we went back to a system where alcohol is pretty freely available, despite the harm it causes (of which the deaths are only part). We now prohibit various kinds of reckless behavior while using alcohol. But we try to minimize the burden on responsible alcohol users by generally allowing alcohol purchase and possession, subject to fairly light regulations.

My point here is simply that the right answer to “so what are we going to do about it?,” even when the “it” is horrible, is sometimes “not that much,” at least beyond forbidding intentional or reckless misbehavior.

In other words, yes. What you complain about as “the usual conservative shrug of the shoulders chestnut rationalization that this is the price we pay for a free society”, is probably the least worst solution we have available to us, and the one I would advocate.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend