Oregon Community College Shooting - What law (if any) could have prevented it?

[Angel4Truth]

Is there anything in this killer's background that would have/should have reasonably come up in a background check?

Depends on what they check for there.

A darker picture emerged Friday of slain Umpqua Community College shooter Chris Harper-Mercer as a deeply troubled, anti-religion, anti-government recluse obsessed with guns.

The U.S. Army discharged him just five weeks into basic training in 2008. Records indicate he graduated in 2009 from a high school catering to troubled and special-needs students. Multiple media sources reported Friday he left behind an angry note that is now in the hands of investigators.

The Los Angeles Times said Harper-Mercer's note was several pages long and talked about his anger and depression.

Sofia Camarena of Long Beach, California, told The Oregonian/OregonLive that she used to date Harper-Mercer's father."I used to change Chris' diapers when he was a baby," she said, upset after learning that he was the shooter in Thursday's massacre and was himself dead. "He was born with problems. He was hard to discipline. If you told him 'no,' he would scream like you had just hit him."

Camarena said that she had heard Harper-Mercer's mother was having "a hard time" with him and that he attended a special school.

Camarena said she last saw Harper-Mercer when he was 18 and she had asked him how he was doing. "He said he was doing good," said Camarena, whose son went on to marry Harper-Mercer's step-sister.

There are a number of indications that Harper-Mercer had mental health or behavioral issues. His screen name on some social media sites was "lithium love." Lithium is used as a psychiatric medication.

Harper-Mercer graduated from The Switzer Learning Center in 2009, according to a graduation listing in The Daily Breeze newspaper. Switzer Center is a private, nonprofit school in Torrance, California, geared for special education students with a range of issues from learning disabilities, health problems and autism or Asperger's Disorder, according to the school's website.

"They take in students that are referred to them by the surrounding school districts," said Thomas Buescher, former chairman of the Switzer board. Enrollment typically ranges between 90 and 100, Buescher said. Two-thirds come from a nontraditional household, like a group home or foster home, according to Buescher, who said a high proportion also come from low-income homes.

A neighbor told The New York Times that Harper-Mercer's mother had told a neighbor, "My son is dealing with some mental issues," and was intolerant of roaches that had infested the building.

Witnesses said Harper-Mercer singled out the religious during the shooting. He reportedly asked students and staff their religion and shot those who answered they were Christians.

The U.S. Army confirmed Friday it discharged Harper-Mercer just halfway through his 10 weeks of basic training in 2008. "A review of Army records indicate that Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer was in service at Ft. Jackson, S.C., from 5 November-11 December 2008 but discharged for failing to meet the minimum administrative standards to serve in the U.S. Army," said Lt. Col. Ben Garrett.

Garrett declined to elaborate on what those "minimum administrative standards" were.

Amid the dysfunction, there were also hints of normalcy. Harper-Mercer found a home of sorts at the Umpqua Community College Theater Arts Department. He worked as a set designer for the department's spring musical. He took a theater class this summer, confirmed Dr. Rita Cavin, Umpqua Community College interim president, and was listed among the set crew for the department's fall production of Blithe Spirit.

Rebecca Miles, a 20-year-old student and Roseburg native, worked with Harper-Harper on last spring's production. "I painted and worked on the set with him," said Miles, who declined to actually speak his name. "He was a little socially awkward. But he was nice, friendly."
Harper-Mercer was born in the United Kingdom, stepsister Carmen Nesnick told CBS Los Angeles, moving to the United States when he was very young. He grew up in the Torrance area. His parents, Ian Bernard Mercer and Laurel Margaret Harper, divorced in 2006.

Harper-Mercer's family voiced shock and sadness, both about his death and the victims' fate.

"In these acts of anger I don't think you can find any one answer," said Anntionet Day, Harper-Mercer's stepsister in a written statement. "I don't know why he targeted Christians. I really wish that we could have helped him before he felt the need to hurt so many people. I do not condone his actions, but he was my brother, I loved him and we ask that you let us grieve as well."

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2015/10/new_details_emerge_on_umpqua_c.html

 

[PureX]

What would you change in the current laws to make them more effective?

The current laws aren't going to do it. I think we need to license gun ownership and use, similar to the way we license the use of motor vehicles: with levels of training and testing for various kinds of firearms and usage. If someone wants to carry a handgun in public, like a cop, they should be trained like cops are trained. If they just want to collect guns, or use them for sport, then they wouldn't need that level of training. All guns should be registered, and all owners should be licensed. And the point of all this oversight is to make sure that the people who own and use firearms are likely to do so responsibly.

Was this guy CLEARLY unstable?

I don't know. But most of these kinds of shooters show all kinds of signs of dangerous mental and emotional instability that never gets communicated to anyone that could have stopped them from getting hold of piles of guns and ammo. That needs to change.

OK, then what would you check for? And is there anything you've seen in this killer's background that would get caught in your test? Something that isn't just hindsight?

I am not a professional psychologist, but I'm sure a workable list of indicators could be assembled. But some obvious problems to look for would be past problems with law enforcement, stalking, drug and alcohol abuse, a history of violence and/or making violent threats, a history of domestic disturbances, difficulty maintaining employment, and so on. Most police training institutions have long known to look out for a certain type of sociopathic narcissistic personality that is attracted to guns and positions of authority, and that will be very likely to seriously abuse them if they're not identified and rejected from any sort of law enforcement. I'm sure they could easily contribute to a general profile description.

It's not perfect, but it's also not rocket science. And we're not just talking about thwarting the crazy mass shooters, we're talking about all kinds of idiots who end up shooting themselves and others because they are unstable and guns were available to them, anyway.

 

[Angel4Truth]

The ATF announced that they have recovered 13 firearms belonging to the Oregon college campus shooter and all were purchased legally.

 

[Alate_One]

when was the last time a nuclear country bombed another nuclear country?

Never, but do you want to keep building nuclear weapons till you find out what happens when that happens?

It's like giving *everyone* guns and finding out what happens.

I generally agree with background checks and training, but I don't think it would do much to prevent incidents like this. In fact, the training might even make it worse because you are ensuring gun owners are more proficient with the weapon so if they choose to do something bad they will be more effective.

I was more thinking forcing people to make time and expend effort. That would cut down on those making impulsive decisions to kill.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Watching sheep discuss how scary teeth are.

opcorn:

We talk about the teeth because we don't want to deal with the astronomically bigger picture in which the teeth are just a tiny little piece. The freedom of religion demand's that our civil government not only condone or allow it, but protect it, with force; thats police. The police should be the staunchest gun-right's advocate's in the nation, because the right to keep and bear firearm's is like a ball to the right to lifes socket; together this hip is powerful, the primary load-bearing joint of the body. Since our civil government rest's upon the right to life, that necessarily imply's the R.K.B.A., and other country's who've over the past century essentially outlawed civilian firearm ownership, have been nonetheless touting there belief in the right to life, but as brief, brief history has already conclusively shown, actively discouraging and even outlawing the exercise of the R.K.B.A., disturbingly regularly, lead's to government somehow or other "forgetting" about the other 1 too.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[TomO]

I think we need to license gun ownership and use, similar to the way we license the use of motor vehicles:

lain: Ya think?

And the point of all this oversight is to make sure that the people who own and use firearms are likely to do so responsibly.

:rotfl: Like they do with motor vehicles.

I don't know.

This is true. lain:

 

[TomO]

...brief history has already conclusively shown, actively discouraging and even outlawing the exercise of the R.K.B.A., disturbingly regularly, lead's to government somehow or other "forgetting" about the other 1 too.

Yeah...funny how that happens. The amnesia tends to spread regarding other concepts too. lain:

 

[PureX]

Like they do with motor vehicles.

Yes. I find it somewhat stunning how many people drive every single day in this country and do NOT disobey the traffic laws; and thereby arrive at their destination safely. Millions and millions of us do so every single day. The success of our regulating the use of motor vehicles is astonishing, even though a few people do occasionally disobey the laws, and cause harm.

So if you're trying to use the fact that a few people disobey traffic laws to justify not having any laws governing the use of automobiles, or guns, you are an idiot. And no one with a functioning brain will agree with you. Because clearly, our system for regulating motor vehicles is extremely effective, and is saving countless lives every single day.

 

[TomO]

Yes. I find it somewhat stunning how many people drive every single day in this country and do NOT disobey the traffic laws; and thereby arrive at their destination safely. Millions and millions of us do so every single day. The success of our regulating the use of motor vehicles is astonishing,

Yeah....Kind of like the millions of gun owners who don't use thier firearms irresponsibly or for evil. lain:

even though a few people do occasionally disobey the laws, and cause harm.

A few ya say?

Traffic fatalities are up 14% so far in 2015, according to new data from the nonprofit National Safety Council.
That puts the year on pace to be the deadliest for drivers since 2007.

 

[tetelestai]

A gunman opens fire and kills at least 10 at the Umpqua Community College in Oregon.

President Obama made a statement saying congress should enact gun control laws.

So I want to know....

What law could have prevented yesterday's tragedy?

What happened at Kent St in 1970 is what will happen when the government has guns, and the people don't have guns.

On May 4, 1970, the Ohio National Guard gunned down Jeffrey Miller, Allison Krause, William Knox Schroeder, and Sandra Scheuer during an anti-war protest at Kent State University.

 

[PureX]

There is a difference between saying (truthfully) that guns make killing people very quick, easy, and effective and saying (deceitfully) that guns kill people.

According to the article 11 Years of Police Gunfire, in Painstaking Detail . The NYPD in 2006 had 36,000 officers who shot 540 bullets. They opened fire 60 times and fatally shot 13 people.

So, out of 36,000 guns only 13 people were killed.

We don't know how many lives were saved by those 36,000 policemen and their guns.

What we do know is that it is not the guns causing the violence.

The guns don't cause the inclination to be violent. But they make that inclination far more deadly whenever they are involved.

In the moderately small town I live in, up until about ten years ago, the usual saturday night bar fights, robberies, and drug arguments would almost always result in a serious battery, and an occasional stabbing. Usually the participants lived, though they often needed to be hospitalized. And it had been that way for many years.

But then, about ten years ago, someone began selling cheap guns in the city and our local police were not on the ball about it. Or they were in on it (not an impossibility). And from then on there has been shootings, regularly. All the drunks and drug pushers and thieves that used to beat and stab each other now shoot each other. And of course they sometimes miss their targets and hit unintended victims (which they didn't used to do when they beat and stabbed each other).

So the influx of cheap guns has had a very distinct effect in my town. And the effect is exactly what one would expect: more people shot and killed, and more innocent bystanders shot and killed.

Why can't our police find out where all these cheap guns came from? I don't know. It's a very good question. My guess is they are coming from big gun dealers in other states, because there is some bizarre law in Pennsylvania that allows out of state guns to be sold here with virtually no oversight whatever. Or, like I said, it's not impossible that the local cops were actually involved in these gun sales.

But the point is that the effect was more shootings, more deaths, and more innocent deaths. It was immediate and undeniable.

 

[PureX]

Yeah....Kind of like the millions of gun owners who don't use thier firearms irresponsibly or for evil. lain:

Exactly like that. Which is why we don't need to ban guns any more than we need to ban automobiles. But we do need to regulate the ownership and use of guns. Just as we regulate the ownership and use of every other dangerous mechanical device. And the goal is essentially the same: to keep irresponsible and untrained people from using them, while helping everyone else use them safely and responsibly.

A few ya say?

Traffic fatalities are up 14% so far in 2015, according to new data from the nonprofit National Safety Council.
That puts the year on pace to be the deadliest for drivers since 2007.

Compared to the many millions of people who safely travel in automobiles every day? … That's an incredibly low number!

 

[ok doser]

. Because clearly, our system for regulating motor vehicles is extremely effective, and is saving countless lives every single day.

:think:

 

[ok doser]

On May 4, 1970, the Ohio National Guard gunned down Jeffrey Miller, Allison Krause, William Knox Schroeder, and Sandra Scheuer during an anti-war protest at Kent State University.

have you ever seen video of some of those anti-war protests of the sixties and seventies?

shoulda shot more of them

 

[PureX]

What happened at Kent St in 1970 is what will happen when the government has guns, and the people don't have guns.

In this case, if those "people" had guns, the carnage would have been FAR worse.

I am dumbfounded by the stupidity that this issue brings out in people! I really am. The abortion issue has reasonable points on both sides, and I can respect those points even when I don't agree with them. But the issue of guns has one side standing on complete absurdity, while the other side gets characterized in only the most absurd extremes. It's like the moment a gun is mentioned, the American people immediately just lose their minds. And the few who try to approach the issue reasonably can't even be heard for the wild clamoring of hoards of madmen.

 

[bybee]

In this case, if those "people" had guns, the carnage would have been FAR worse.

I am dumbfounded by the stupidity that this issue brings out in people! I really am. The abortion issue has reasonable points on both sides, and I can respect those points even when I don't agree with them. But the issue of guns has one side standing on complete absurdity, while the other side gets characterized in absurd extremes. It's like the moment a gun is mentioned, the American people immediately just lose their minds. And the few who try to approach the issue reasonable can't even be heard for the wild clamoring of hoards of madmen.

And...you call yourself reasonable?

 

[bybee]

have you ever seen video of some of those anti-war protests of the sixties and seventies?

shoulda shot more of them

Please don't say that. Many of the students in that day were being brainwashed by America hating professors. Remember they were/are someone's children and, no doubt, many if not most of them have come to a more reasonable approach to problem solving.

 

[ok doser]

In this case, if the "people" had had guns, the carnage would have been FAR worse.

in this case, "the people" had thrown bottles at the cops, burned buildings and blocked fire responders, and thrown rocks at the national guardsmen

they got what they deserved :idunno:


too bad about the collateral damage

 

[genuineoriginal]

The guns don't cause the inclination to be violent. But they make that inclination far more deadly whenever they are involved.

In the moderately small town I live in, up until about ten years ago, the usual saturday night bar fights, robberies, and drug arguments would almost always result in a serious battery, and an occasional stabbing. Usually the participants lived, though they often needed to be hospitalized. And it had been that way for many years.

But then, about ten years ago, someone began selling cheap guns in the city and our local police were not on the ball about it. Or they were in on it (not an impossibility). And from then on there has been shootings, regularly. All the drunks and drug pushers and thieves that used to beat and stab each other now shoot each other. And of course they sometimes miss their targets and hit unintended victims (which they didn't used to do when they beat and stabbed each other).

So the influx of cheap guns has had a very distinct effect in my town. And the effect is exactly what one would expect: more people shot and killed, and more innocent bystanders shot and killed.

Why can't our police find out where all these cheap guns came from? I don't know. It's a very good question. My guess is they are coming from big gun dealers in other states, because there is some bizarre law in Pennsylvania that allows out of state guns to be sold here with virtually no oversight whatever. Or, like I said, it's not impossible that the local cops were actually involved in these gun sales.

But the point is that the effect was more shootings, more deaths, and more innocent deaths. It was immediate and undeniable.

Your problem is not the guns.

 

[tetelestai]

In this case, if those "people" had guns, the carnage would have been FAR worse.

How so?

There were over 50 million people exterminated in the last century who didn't have guns, by people who did have guns.

Throughout history, every country where the government had all the guns, and the people had no guns, has had really, really bad results for the people with no guns.