- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,129
- 14,025
- 2,190
On October 1, 2015 Christopher Harper Mercer, a mentally ill 25 year old man, went on a rampage at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, and killed nine people. After being shot multiple times by law enforcement he delivered his own coup de grace. The community of Roseburg is staunchly pro-gun. Open carry is a fact of life in this rural community. Farming, ranching and logging are the primary sources of income, and all of those livelihoods are increasingly restricted…which is reflected in the economy. In part because of the economy, subsistence hunting, farming, and animal husbandry are more vital than ever to the survival of locals, and they “bitterly cling” to their firearms as useful tools to successfully engage in a rural, subsistence lifestyle.
The shooting at UCC does this community a particular insult, because it took place on the heels of a debate that resulted in lines drawn between the community and the school. The debate was whether or not to ban guns from UCC, and whether or not to engage an armed guard at UCC. The school opted to go against the community, and proudly and loudly announced their intent to ban guns from their campus. Although violations would not be prosecuted, Oregon law dictates the school could expel/terminate employment of those who violate the school edict, and the school announced their intent to do so if people violated the gun ban…regardless of what the community thought about it.
“We thought we were a very safe campus, and having armed security officers on campus might change the culture," said Joe Olson, retired president (as of June 2015) of UCC said. By “We” he means himself and the progressive school hierarchy who pushed the ban and refused to hire the guard over the community’s wishes.
The current UCC president Rita Cavin, said the shooting was an “anomaly” that has no bearing on the stated, advertised anti-gun stance of the school. But the fact of the matter is...the residents of Roseburg and the community feared the safety of their loved ones in an area that advertised itself as "no-gun". Anti-gun, agenda driven ideologues ignored the locals, and put a policy in place "for their own good"...and within months, the worse case scenario played itself out.
This "anomaly" was exactly what the pro-gun residents of Roseburg were afraid of, when the school opted to ignore their concerns and restrict community members from legally protecting themselves at UCC. Pro-gun proponents wanted the school to reflect their values. But they were vetoed by smug, out of touch educators who think they "know better" than the law, who think they know better than the community that pays their salaries, and who think they are justified in penalizing people for wanting to retain the ability to defend themselves. Ultimately and within a not very long period of time, the very thing the community feared could happen, has happened. Now, none of those who made that decision for the good people of Roseburg, against their wishes, wants to comment on it. Yet just months ago, they argued that arming people on campus would create an atmosphere where this very situation could take place. Now that the situation HAS taken place under the atmosphere that THEY created, they suddenly have nothing to say on the topic. Oh wait...Cavin maintains that it's an "anomaly" and in no way related to the atmosphere they created by advertising their no-gun stance.
One person (at least) was armed that day at UCC. Thirty-six-year-old Air Force veteran John Parker said, “I don’t care what the policy is. I know what the law is.” He wishes he had had the opportunity to use his weapon in defense of the nine innocent people targeted by a lunatic who knew they were unarmed.
And the survivors and families of the victims undoubtedly wish that just one person in the vicinity of the shooter had likewise ignored the bad policy. If Chris Mintz, the National Guard veteran who took 7 bullets while blocking a doorway with his body, had been armed, the number of people dead in Roseburg would have been drastically reduced. Mintz knows that, Clark knows that, Cavin knows that...and the shooter knew that too. Which is why he chose a gun free location. His objective was to shoot as many innocent people (Christians, specifically) as he could before being neutralized, and as a resident of Roseburg, he knew the best place to achieve that.
The shooting at UCC does this community a particular insult, because it took place on the heels of a debate that resulted in lines drawn between the community and the school. The debate was whether or not to ban guns from UCC, and whether or not to engage an armed guard at UCC. The school opted to go against the community, and proudly and loudly announced their intent to ban guns from their campus. Although violations would not be prosecuted, Oregon law dictates the school could expel/terminate employment of those who violate the school edict, and the school announced their intent to do so if people violated the gun ban…regardless of what the community thought about it.
“We thought we were a very safe campus, and having armed security officers on campus might change the culture," said Joe Olson, retired president (as of June 2015) of UCC said. By “We” he means himself and the progressive school hierarchy who pushed the ban and refused to hire the guard over the community’s wishes.
The current UCC president Rita Cavin, said the shooting was an “anomaly” that has no bearing on the stated, advertised anti-gun stance of the school. But the fact of the matter is...the residents of Roseburg and the community feared the safety of their loved ones in an area that advertised itself as "no-gun". Anti-gun, agenda driven ideologues ignored the locals, and put a policy in place "for their own good"...and within months, the worse case scenario played itself out.
This "anomaly" was exactly what the pro-gun residents of Roseburg were afraid of, when the school opted to ignore their concerns and restrict community members from legally protecting themselves at UCC. Pro-gun proponents wanted the school to reflect their values. But they were vetoed by smug, out of touch educators who think they "know better" than the law, who think they know better than the community that pays their salaries, and who think they are justified in penalizing people for wanting to retain the ability to defend themselves. Ultimately and within a not very long period of time, the very thing the community feared could happen, has happened. Now, none of those who made that decision for the good people of Roseburg, against their wishes, wants to comment on it. Yet just months ago, they argued that arming people on campus would create an atmosphere where this very situation could take place. Now that the situation HAS taken place under the atmosphere that THEY created, they suddenly have nothing to say on the topic. Oh wait...Cavin maintains that it's an "anomaly" and in no way related to the atmosphere they created by advertising their no-gun stance.
One person (at least) was armed that day at UCC. Thirty-six-year-old Air Force veteran John Parker said, “I don’t care what the policy is. I know what the law is.” He wishes he had had the opportunity to use his weapon in defense of the nine innocent people targeted by a lunatic who knew they were unarmed.
And the survivors and families of the victims undoubtedly wish that just one person in the vicinity of the shooter had likewise ignored the bad policy. If Chris Mintz, the National Guard veteran who took 7 bullets while blocking a doorway with his body, had been armed, the number of people dead in Roseburg would have been drastically reduced. Mintz knows that, Clark knows that, Cavin knows that...and the shooter knew that too. Which is why he chose a gun free location. His objective was to shoot as many innocent people (Christians, specifically) as he could before being neutralized, and as a resident of Roseburg, he knew the best place to achieve that.
