Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Following the shooting at an Oregon community college, Obama took to the podium to voice his disgust for gun laws and how these incidents seem all too routine, and how Americans have grown “numb” to mass shootings. Predictably, he blamed lax gun laws, as in his routine, and he said, as many on the left insist, that mass shootings are on the rise. And things like, “We’re the only developed country that has to deal with mass shootings.” Every other developed country has eradicated mass shootings by enforcing heavy controls on guns, such as national confiscation as in countries like the UK and Australia. They might have extremely high rates of violent crime, but at least most of their violent crimes and murders don’t involve guns. As to why a mass shooting which resulted in nine fatalities is worse than Chicago violence which results in far more fatalities, I have no idea:

As widely reported in the mainstream media, in a 15-hour period between Monday night and Tuesday morning a total of 14 people were shot in Chicago, including two young boys. Six of those people died.

Indeed, the stats show that in the last two weekends in Chicago, 98 people were shot and 13 people were killed. This is going on every single day.

Apparently, last month was Chicago’s deadliest month since 2002 with at least 60 murders. But Obama never seems to care about those shootings and killings. It’s like he doesn’t even consider them. They don’t count. Black gang violence isn’t newsworthy to him.

According to criminologist James Alan Fox, mass shootings aren’t on the rise. What is on the rise is media-fueled hysteria and hype:

Notwithstanding the sadness caused by each of these tragedies, nothing has really changed in term of risk. One can take virtually any period of months or years during the past few decades and find a series of shootings that seemed at the time to signal a new epidemic. The ‘80s were marked by a flurry of deadly postal shootings, which gave rise to the term “going postal.” The ‘90s witnessed a string of mass shootings in middle and high schools carried out by alienated adolescents with access to borrowed guns, prompting the venerable Dan Rather to declare an epidemic of school violence.

More recently, the “active shooter” has become the new boogeyman armed with a gun. Of course, there were shootings in public places long before this frightening catchphrase was created. Nowadays, any time someone shows up with a gun in a school, a church, a movie theater, a shopping mall or a restaurant, twitter becomes alive with messages of alarm.

I certainly don’t mean to minimize the suffering of the Oregon victims and their families, but the shooting spree is not a reflection of more deadly times. Consider the facts.

According to a careful analysis of data on mass shootings (using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed), the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria.

In order for the media to stay in business, they’ve got to keep inventing new fears. Can you imagine if they told the truth about things like mass shootings? People wouldn’t watch them as much. They’re ratings would go down. Their ad revenue would start to dry up. Networks would have to downsize.

They’ve got to make it seem like this is the worst it’s ever been. It’s like every four years, “this is the most important presidential election in history.” They’ve got to keep people hooked up to the tube. If people can be convinced that this really is the most important presidential election, people will stay tuned in.

If people can be convinced that gun-wielding maniacs are everywhere, and times are more dangerous today than they ever have been, people will stay tuned in out of fear. People will get the impression that mass shootings really are on the rise.

In reality, they’re not. Just the media’s hype and hysteria.

Guns In God We Trust freedom combo 2

waving flagPosted on October 5, 2015Michael Minkoff

Obama made this statement in the aftermath of the Oregon shooting, probably in an effort to convince an already reeling American public to support more gun laws:

We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don’t work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence.

The Washington Post picked up on his statement and did some fact-checking. The results are not pretty. As the article points out, 60% of gun deaths are suicides, and the rate of suicide is nearly immune to gun laws. Of course, if 60%, or 3 out of 5, of your gun deaths are from suicide, having less restrictive gun laws will result in more gun deaths every time—because a person who is set on committing suicide will have easier access to guns.

But it’s hardly fair to point to data that depends on suicide in order to transform policy in the wake of a mass shooting. The real question would have to be, “Do more gun laws decrease gun murder?” The answer to that question is a “probably not” to a clear “no.”

After you remove suicides from the data, gun laws seem to have no effect whatsoever on gun deaths. Hawaii still has the lowest gun deaths per capita, but apparently that hasn’t changed much from before Hawaii even had gun laws. The people there are just not generally shooting each other, apparently. On the other hand, three states with very loose gun laws show up in the top five.

And the gun law/gun murder connection might be even more tenuous than that. It might be the case that, like in Hawaii, other factors unrelated to gun laws contribute to high or low rates of gun murder. In the end, the ever-renewed call for more gun laws in the wake of national gun tragedy is misplaced and manipulative. And besides, Oregon is one of the states with restrictive gun laws. So there’s that.

Citizen Control Armed Disarmed Citizenry In God We Trust freedom combo 2

The massacre in Charleston, South Carolina of nine members of a Bible study at a historic African-American church has horrified the entire country. Dylann Roof, a 21-year-old avowed white supremacist, has confessed to the shooting. As news of this cold-blooded murder spread, attention turned, as it inevitably (and understandably) does after such incidents, to the subject of the presence of guns in American society.

Yet it quickly became apparent that America’s moribund gun control debate would remain moribund. President Obama’s declaration that the country “needs a change in attitude” had a rote quality to it, as did Hillary Clinton’s ringing endorsement of “common-sense gun reforms.” As for Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s (D-New York) exhortation to pass legislation she recently introduced to require gun owners to obtain liability insurance on the grounds that “[i]f you want to buy that Uzi, the thinking goes, you should also have to pay for the risk that gun poses to society as a result,” the less said the better.

Calls for stronger background checks on gun purchases or a new ban on “assault weapons” have become formulaic. They’re like winding a Victrola: the record resumes spinning but it plays the same old song. Another tune in the gun-control songbook, however, is worth listening to. Not as many sing it, but nonetheless it is instructive as it shows the chorus of the media and gun-control advocates at their laziest and most uncurious, and at their most disingenuous if not dishonest. What song do I mean? I forget its name, but it goes something like this.

What Australia Did After a 1996 ShootingHey Leftist

After any mass shooting someone will invoke the name “Australia” and raise the question, “Can Australia’s gun-control laws be a model for the United States?” This time the honor belonged to CNN’s Laura Smith-Spark, who recounts the circumstances that led to Australia’s current gun-control laws and outlines their provisions. The laws were passed after the Port Arthur massacre, a 1996 mass shooting in which one man killed 35 people. Australia outlawed semi-automatic rifles, certain categories of shotgun, and implemented strict licensing and registration requirements. The cornerstone of its new gun-control scheme, however, was a massive gun buyback program. The Australian government purchased 650,000 to one million guns with funds raised via a special tax.

The Australian government purchased 650,000 to one million guns with funds raised via a special tax.

The Australian paradigm became popular in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, school shootings in 2012. USA Today, ABC News, Slate, the Washington Post, and the Christian Science Monitor were among the outlets that published articles urging Americans to look closely at the actions their antipodean cousins took after a similar tragedy. Nor are Americans the only ones who think we should heed the Australian example. Numerous Australians have expressed pride in their country’s gun laws by penning columns beseeching Americans to transport America’s gun laws from Down Under.

These articles all point to the reduction in the rate of gun deaths in Australia after the new system was established as its main achievement. But it is the policy that allowed that system to be established which holds the writers’ and consequently the reader’s attention. That policy is the gun buyback program, which removed up to one million weapons from Australians’ hands and homes. This was, depending on the estimate, a fifth to a third of Australia’s gun stock. The statistic does not seem remarkable as a raw number, but it is quite so when expressed as a percentage. No wonder commentators fixate on it. The problem is the way most of them tell that tale: when they describe Australia’s gun buyback program, almost none of them tell the truth about it.

The Australian Law Banned and Confiscated GunsGuns

The crucial fact they omit is that the buyback program was mandatory. Australia’s vaunted gun buyback program was in fact a sweeping program of gun confiscation. Only the articles from USA Today and the Washington Post cited above contain the crucial information that the buyback was compulsory. The article by Smith-Spark, the latest entry in the genre, assuredly does not. It’s the most important detail about the main provision of Australia’s gun laws, and pundits ignore it. That’s like writing an article about how Obamacare works without once mentioning the individual mandate.

Yet when American gun control advocates and politicians praise Australia’s gun laws, that’s just what they’re doing. Charles Cooke of the National Review shredded the rhetorical conceit of bellowing “Australia!” last year after President Obama expressed his admiration for gun control à la Oz:

You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law. When the Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that they we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change this. Again, one doesn’t bring up countries that have confiscated firearms as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward confiscation.

Cooke, of course, is right. When gun control advocates say they want Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States.

Democrat Leaders Support Gun ConfiscationGun Control Supporters cropped

Not all gun control proponents prevaricate. Some are forthright about their intentions. After Sandy Hook, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) stated she was considering legislation to institute a mandatory national buyback program. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also expressed an interest in confiscation, at least for assault weapons. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” Ultimately, New York did not institute confiscation, but did require registration of existing assault weapons and banned all sales of new and existing ones within the state.

Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money. So those hostile to gun rights continue to demand mandatory confiscation.

Gun buybacks remain a popular policy with the Left because it is the only way of achieving what the Left regards as the only acceptable gun-control solution: reducing the number of guns in America. Matt Miller of the Center for American Progress proposed such a program after Sandy Hook. Conceding that anything mandatory was unlikely to pass Congress, he pitched a gun buyback program as a form of economic stimulus: give people cash for guns, which they can then spend on other things. “Make gun owners an offer they can’t refuse. Instead of a measly $200 a gun, Uncle Sam might offer $500.” Why a gun owner would accept $500 for a gun that likely cost considerably more is a question Miller unsurprisingly does not ask, let alone answer. Posing it would puncture his balloon.

Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money. So those hostile to gun rights continue to demand mandatory confiscation. Earlier this year, the advisory commission appointed by Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy after Sandy Hook recommended banning the sale and possession of “any rifle or handgun that accepts a detachable magazine.” Commission members shrugged off suggestions that this would entail an unconstitutional prohibition on most firearms Americans own, saying it was not their job to take such niceties into account. The editorial board of the Newark Star-Ledger displayed similar “magical thinking” last September when it called for mandatory confiscation in New Jersey. Predictably, the board cited the Australian example, pointing to the drop in gun violence there as all the necessary justification for inaugurating such a program here. The editorial board concluded by bemoaning America’s “hysteria over ‘gun confiscation,’” which would keep their fantasy just that.

How Would Government Get the Guns?cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg

On this point at least they are correct. Gun confiscation is not happening in the United States any time soon. But let’s suppose it did. How would it work? Australia’s program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of Australian firearms. There are about as many guns in America as there are people: 310 million of both in 2009. A fifth to a third would be between 60 and 105 million guns. To achieve in America what was done in Australia, in other words, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms.

To achieve in America what was done in Australia, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms.

The 310 million guns in America are not owned by 310 million Americans. Just how many Americans own guns, though, is controversial. The General Social Survey shows gun ownership on a four-decade downward trajectory, to 32 percent of households in 2015. A 2011 Gallup poll, on the other hand, found gun ownership at a two-decade high, with 47 percent of Americans stating they possessed a firearm. As Harry Enten of The Guardian observed, the answer to the gun ownership question seems heavily dependent on wording and methodology: phone surveys consistently find higher rates. Moreover, and this is the key point, those rates, however the surveys are conducted, have been static for at least 15 years, while background checks have soared.

A third to a half of the U.S. population translates to 105 to 160 million people. A fifth to a third of guns is 60 to 105 million. Now that we see what is required for an American buyback scheme to work on an Australian scale, we can at last we confront the question gun-control advocates never ask, let alone answer: how do you take 60 to 105 million firearms from 105 to 160 million Americans? The answer to that question is the answer to the question of whether the Australian example really is valid for America after all. If the experience of “blue” states which introduced gun regulations that have nearly universal approval on the Left is any indication, liberals are likely to experience keen disappointment.

Americans Resist Gun Confiscationburke

Both New York and Connecticut imposed strict new rules on the possession and sale of guns after Sandy Hook. Among these were requirements for the registration of so-called assault rifles in both states and in New York a ban on “high-capacity” magazines regardless of when they were manufactured or purchased. Compliance with the registration requirement has been modest at best, as hundreds of thousands of gun owners in both states refused to register their weapons. So far, then, the laws have been most successful in creating hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers who feel obligated to break the law.

If New York and Connecticut won’t go along, what do Democrats expect would happen in “red” states?

New York and Connecticut are two of the “bluest” states in the Union, states with staunchly liberal Democratic governors and legislatures dominated by Democrats and Northeastern Republicans who vote for gun control. Yet the residents of these states have refused to go along with the kinds of laws that gun-control advocates view as a minimum for what they would like to see adopted at the federal level. If New York and Connecticut won’t go along, what do they expect would happen in “red” states?Progressives will not answer that question because they never ask it, not even to themselves, lest somehow they say it out loud. On guns, the Left is incoherent, even insincere. It won’t say what it wants because what it wants is “a nonstarter politically, unfeasible in reality, and, by the way, completely unconstitutional”—that is, confiscation on the Australian model.Liberals refuse to confront the implications of their Australian dream because doing so would force them to give that dream up. Those implications are easy to spell out, though. A national gun buyback law would turn a significant portion of the American people into criminals. Residents of New York and Connecticut snubbed their new laws. The other 48 states are not New York and Connecticut. Civil disobedience on a national scale would ensue.

The Australia Plan Would Require Coercion and ConflictTree of Liberty 03

New York and Connecticut authorities so far have shown no inclination to enforce their laws by going door to door to round up unregistered guns and arrest their owners. But that’s what would be necessary to enforce the law. A federal law, therefore, would require sweeping, national police action involving thousands of lawmen and affecting tens of millions of people. If proponents of gun control are serious about getting guns out of Americans’ hands, someone will have to take those guns out of Americans’ hands.

If proponents of gun control are serious about getting guns out of Americans’ hands, someone will have to take those guns out of Americans’ hands.

Australian-style gun control, in other words, would require government force and coercion on a massive scale. Now, progressives don’t understand the nature of coercion, so maybe they would not see police action to enforce gun confiscation as coercion. Or, perhaps, they actually do understand that their ideal form of gun control requires it, which is why they keep speaking in code and talk about “Australia” and not “wholesale confiscation.”Citizen Control

Let there be no doubt. Gun confiscation would have to be administered by force of arms. I do not expect that Tyranney Alertthose who dismissed their fellow citizens for clinging bitterly to their guns are so naive that they imagine these people will suddenly cease their bitter clinging when some nice young man knocks on their door and says, “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to take your guns.” As though somehow those who daily espouse their belief that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to resist government oppression and tyranny will not use the Second Amendment to resist what they see as government oppression and tyranny. Or maybe they are so naive.

Many on the Left—and for this they are to be commended—have voiced their opposition to the increasing militarization of America’s police. Yet only a militarized police could enforce an Australian gun-control scheme in the United States. To take arms from men requires men with arms. There’s no other way to do it.Comming Soon 02

Yet because of the numbers of guns and men with guns in this country, any policy to remove those guns will inevitably depend on some measure of coercion, quite possibly a heavy measure. Does anyone honestly believe this country has the will or resources to seize 60 to 105 million firearms from 105 to 160 million Americans? “Progressives believe it,” I hear you answer. Yes, but the ones who do, believe this dishonestly.

Modeling Australia Means Civil War

When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia’s gun laws as its own, he is really saying the cause of gun control is so important that he is willing to impose these laws even at the cost of violent insurrection. Make no mistake, armed rebellion would be the consequence. Armed men would be dispatched to confiscate guns, they would be met by armed men, and blood would be shed. Australia is a valid example for America only if you are willing for that blood to be spilled in torrents and rivers. To choose Australia is to choose civil war.

In an op-ed for the New York Times written after Sandy Hook, John Howard, the prime minister who oversaw the passage of Australia’s current gun laws, implored Americans to consider his nation’s example. Yet Howard fully understood the fundamental irrelevance of his country’s laws to the United States, and undermined his case by highlighting the differences between the two countries.

Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)Armed

Leave aside that Australia had—and has—far fewer guns and people than we do. Forget the bits about the gun lobby or Australia’s greater urbanization. The crucial point is the final one: Australia does not have a bill of rights, and that, ultimately, is the reason it was able to confiscate guns. Australians have no constitutional right to bear arms, so seizing their weapons did not violate their constitutional rights. Gun confiscation in the United States would require violating not only the Second Amendment, but the fourth and fifth as well, and possibly even the first. Progressives generally have no compunction about breaching the Second Amendment, but one wonders how many others they would be eager to violate in their quest to nullify the second. Civil war and a tattered Constitution: such are the consequences of invoking “Australia.” It is not a model; it is a mirage.

There is an essential mendacity, whether intentional or not, to all suggestions that Australia’s system of gun control is suitable for the United States. Conjuring Australia isn’t innocent. But this trick does serve one valuable purpose: when gun controllers perform it they reveal what they truly desire. An Australian-style gun-control regime, it must be abundantly clear by now, would not only be impractical in the United States, it would be immoral. We would all be better served if American gun-control advocates acknowledged this reality and left their fantasy Down Under where it belongs. 

Varad Mehta is a historian. He lives in suburban Philadelphia.
freedom In God We Trust freedom combo 2

waving flagGOP Conspiracy

waving flagPosted on October 3, 2015

Screen Shot 2015-10-03 at 8.53.39 AMToo many lives lost. May they R.I.P.

The nine victims killed in Thursday’s massacre at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon have been named by police.

Officials identified the nine as; Lucero Alcaraz, 19; Quinn Glen Cooper, 18; Kim Saltmarsh Dietz, 59; Lucas Eibel, 18; Jason Dale Johnson, 33; Lawrence Levine, 67; Sarena Dawn Moore, 44; Treven Taylor Anspach, 20;  and Rebecka Ann Carnes, 18.v02 v03 v04 v05 v06 v07 v08 v09 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15

Shortly after reading the names of those who lost their lives, members of the police department read statements from some of the families.

They also revealed that the number of people injured during Thursday’s shooting was nine, not seven as previously reported.

The gunman, Chris Harper-Mercer – who was enrolled in the writing class that he opened fire in – was also killed on Thursday by police.

One of the first casualties of the massacre was identified this morning as 19-year-old student Alcaraz.

Alcaraz’s older sister, Maria Leticia, posted a heartbreaking tribute to her slain sibling on Facebook saying the first-year UCC student had aspired to be a pediatric nurse.

‘Lucero, I miss you I wish you were here,’ Maria Alcaraz wrote. ‘I can’t sleep. I never got the chance to tell you how proud of you I was.

‘You would have been a great pediatric nurse. I was so proud of you for getting you college completely paid through scholarships and you made it into college honors.

‘You were going to do great things love. I ache so much right now..I need you..’

in an earlier posting, Maria Alcaraz spoke of her pain and anger at losing her sister in an act of senseless violence.

‘Never in a million years would I have imagined going through something like this,’ she wrote. ‘She was my best friend and my sister. Today, I lost her. I can’t begin to describe how I feel. I’m full of anger, pain, sadness, regret that I didn’t get the chance to see her or prevent this from happening.

‘I don’t know how I will make it through this …I don’t know if I can ever relieve this pain. Rest in piece sister…I’ll see you soon.’

Lucero is survived by five siblings. Her 14-year-old sister, Eileen, told BuzzFeed the college student was a talented artist and the ‘responsible one’ in the family.

The second victim was identified Friday as Jason Johnson, whose mother spoke proudly of her son’s new-found commitment to turning his life around.

Tonja Johnson Engle told NBC News the 33-year-old had struggled with drug addiction but completed a six-month rehabilitation program and enrolled in Umpqua Community College to continue his education.

‘He started Monday and he was so proud of what he had accomplished, and rightly so,’ Johnson Engel tearfully told the station. ‘The other day he looked at me and hugged me and said, “Mom, how long have you been waiting for one of your kids to go to college?” And I said, “Oh, about 20 years.”’

The heartbroken mother said she last saw her son alive as he was leaving for class Thursday morning.

‘Love ya,’ Jason told her after giving her a kiss. ‘I’ll see you this afternoon.’

The deaths of two more UCC students, Lucas Eibel and Rebecka Carnes, both 18 years old, were also confirmed by their families this afternoon.

Carnes’ stepfather, Aaron Chandler, told the station KATU: ‘We are at a loss for words.’

The New York Times reported the 18-year-old was a star softball player in high school and was studying to become a dental hygienist. Carnes had just began classes at UCC on September 28.

Her cousin Bethany Johnson mourned Rebecka’s passing on Facebook, writing that she ‘had the biggest hear an [sic] amazing soul.’

In the first chaotic hours after the shooting, Rebecka’s mother, Jessica Chandler, spoke to ABC News, saying she was worried for her daughter because she didn’t know where she was. She later learned from Carnes’ friend that that student was taken to a hospital.

When asked what she would say to her daughter, Chandler said, ‘I would tell her that I love her, and I want her in my arms.’

Victim Lucas Eibel, also 18 years of age, was a quadruplet. According to the Roseburg News-Review. Lucas, his two brothers, Mitchell and Cole, and sister  Alexis graduated from high school this year.

He was studying chemistry and had received two scholarships after graduating high school with ‘high academic marks.’

‘We have been trying to figure out how to tell everyone how amazing Lucas was, but that would take 18 years. Lucas loved FFA, volunteering at Wildlife Safari and Saving Grace animal shelter. He was an amazing soccer player,’ said his family in a statement.

Megan Dilson, the faculty adviser for the Roseburg FFA, praised Eibel in an interview with Oregon Live.

‘Lucas was one of the best students our FFA Chapter had. I am so devastated by his loss,’ she said.

Family friend Jeremy Root said; ‘Just the worst thing to happen to the best people.’

A friend of 20-year-old Treven Anspach confirmed to People Magazine that he too was among the victims of Thursday’s shooting rampage.

Jesse Milbrat, also 20, told the publication he and Anspach were former school mates and co-workers at Roseburg Forest Products.

‘He was a hard worker and a damn good basketball player,’ the friend said. ‘He deserves way better.’

Milbrat last saw Anspach in May before leaving for the Army.

‘The last thing he said to me was, “Good luck and thanks for your service”,’ he said.

On Thursday afternoon, Anspach’s family were frantically looking for him. His brother, Cameron, told the Los Angeles Times that no one heard from Treven.

That evening, a friend tweeted that the 20-year-old was undergoing surgery in Eugene, Oregon, and asked people to pray for him.

Mrs Dietz, who was divorced with one daughter, was a mature student and had been attending a lecture in classroom 12 when shooter Chris Harper Mercer burst in.

A friend, Natalie Robbins, 38, said she heard of Mrs Dietz’ death from a fellow student immediately after the shootings – news confirmed in a phone call two hours ago from the 72-year-old’s former husband.

‘Kim and I had a lot in common despite the differences in our ages,’ said Mrs Robbins.

‘She had come through a nasty divorce and she didn’t have much education.

‘She would help me with math. She was an open person, a lovely person and I watched her bloom over the two terms we studied together.

‘Each term she got more comfortable [with me] and we shared many happy moments and a few tears too.’

The family of Quinn Robbins released a statement that was read by officials on Friday.

‘Quinn was funny, sweet, compassionate and such a wonderful loving person,’ it read.

‘He always stood up for people,” the statement reads. He was going to take his brown belt test next week, and loved dancing and voice acting and playing Ingress with his older brother, Cody.

‘Our lives are shattered beyond repair. We send our condolences to all the families who have been so tragically affected by this deranged gunman. No one should ever have to feel the pain we are feeling. Please remember the victims and their families. Please remember Quinn.’

The family have also started a GoFundMe page on which they wrote; ‘Yesterday, October 1, 2015 tragically multiple innocent people were murdered and injured by a deranged gunman at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon.

‘Our precious family member Quinn Cooper’s life was taken from him. He was taken from us, from the world. Quinn was just 18 years old. Quinn was my youngest son and younger brother to my eldest son Cody Cooper.

‘Quinn is everything and he was loved by everyone. He will be missed greatly by many many people please remember him for his fun and witty nature and all of the fun he had with everyone.’

Sarena Moore, 44, was a Seventh-day Adventist according to her Facebook page and also loved animals, sharing pictures of horses and dogs.

Moore, who also worked at her church, had two sons who lived in the area.

 Her brother, Rick Goin, was not yet ready to speak about his sister’s death when approached by Oregon Live.

‘It’s not an easy subject. One thing I will say is I’m glad the officers, when they did get there, took care of business,’ said Goin.

‘The shooter is gone and we don’t’ have to wait for trials and everything else.’

Lawrence Levine was teaching a writing class at the school when he was shot dead.

The 67-year-old also loved to fish, tend bar and was a man of strong opinions.

‘He was the sweetest, most gentle, kind, thoughtful and creative person. My heart is broken,’ said David Furman, a lifelong friend.

He also enjoyed to write mystery novels according to a former student with whom he had a romantic relationship.

Mrs Robbins, who was on campus during the shootings and was in a classroom on the opposite side of Snyder Hall to the one attacked by Harper Mercer.

Terrified, she ran in the opposite direction and took shelter behind another building before being ushered into the cafeteria by a teacher.

‘I was in writing class when I heard the first shot,’ she says.

‘At first I thought a table had fallen, then I heard another six shots. Our instructor told us to get the hell out.

‘I was panicking and just ran. I didn’t know where to go.’

Afterwards, Mrs Robbins was taken to a reunification center at the local fairground with other survivors and found Mrs Dietz’s daughter there, searching for her mother.

‘I kept telling her it would be fine. I knew Kim was dead but I couldn’t tell her that.

‘You hope but I knew she was gone. I found her father [Mrs Dietz’s ex-husband] and left them together.

‘I spoke with him two hours ago and he confirmed that she had died.’

Meanwhile, doctors said three women airlifted to a hospital after the tragedy in Roseburg were expected to survive, but one will likely have lasting neurological damage.

Dr. Scott Russi of PeaceHealth Medical Center said at a news conference Friday that the woman was shot in the head and the bullet entered the left side of her brain.

He says another woman flown to the hospital in Springfield was shot in the spine, and the other suffered wounds to the abdomen and chest.

The women range in age from 18 to 34.

Read more:

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

waving flagBy

He holds us up
He holds us up. He receives us unto Himself

URL of the original posting site:

Dear sweet mamas, I don’t know your pain. But this I know: your children did the right thing, and I pray your unimaginable grief is mixed with unbelievable joy that they chose Jesus.

Dear Sweet Mamas,

I know you are hurting today. I won’t pretend I know how badly. I am a mom of three and the thought of not having my kids with me here on this earth scares and pains me and makes me feel short of breath. That that is a reality for you today, I am so, so sorry. I am grieved for you. I have shed tears for you and my heart breaks.

But I don’t feel what you feel. I have to ask God to feel that for you, because I know He does. I have to ask him when I pray for you, as I have been doing constantly over the last 20 hours, to wrap you in His arms and to breathe sweet words of comfort in your ears. He knows the pain of a murdered child. He knows the pain, as you do, of a child who was murdered for his faith.

Yesterday a 26-year-old man whose name I won’t give more fame to walked up to your child and said “Are you a Christian?” and your child said “Yes”.


Then he shot them in the head. He walked up to some other moms’ children and asked the same, and if they said “no” he still wounded them, but he let them live.

He killed nine of your children, Mamas. Do you know what that means? That means eight of your brave children saw one of their own take a bullet in the head for claiming Christ and they said yes anyway.

They said yes anyway. They said yes anyway. They said yes anyway.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Nine times yes.

Nine lives gone from this earth.

Nine loved ones immediately in the glorious presence of Christ.


I want my children here with me, and I know you want yours with you too.

But I will tell you that a YES and a life snuffed out for Christ is better than a NO and 100 years more on this earth without Him.

To LIVE is Christ, and to DIE is gain, and your children PROVED that yesterday. May we all look to them and BE STRENGTHENED.

Mamas, this is a dark time in our world for those who love the Lord. And in our country, it has been easy for a long, long time to claim Christ. But it is getting harder now, and it will get harder still.

The truth is before long, it may very well be ME or MY CHILDREN having to choose Christ over life. If that moment comes for me, I will think of your children. And I will have the strength to say YES. I pray and pray and pray that my young children, when they are 18, 21, 23 and in college like yours, will be strong enough to say YES also.

Because ultimately, ALL I want my children to accomplish in life is a deep relationship with Christ.

And your children’s actions yesterday have inspired me all the more to instill that love for Christ in my babies.

Thank you for loving your children. Thank you for being Christ to your children. You have made a difference in a way I know you never wanted or hoped or expected to, I know, I know.

But Mama. Your child was able to look into the face of God yesterday and hear “well done”.

And I’m pretty sure you had a lot to do with that.

Sweet Mamas, I am praying for you. It is my hope that my prayers and maybe these words when you are strong enough to read them will help you through this time when all you want is to hold your child again in your arms.

Oh, Mamas. I hurt for you. And on behalf of Christian moms everywhere, let me say, we will NOT forget your children. Their lives were not in vain, nor were their deaths. I pray that God’s glory and love surrounds you. And I thank you, Mamas. For raising up children who said YES.

May we all do the same.

Much love,


Jenny Rapson is a wife and mom of three from Ohio and the editor of For Every Mom. You can also find her alternately griping and gushing about her kids at her own blog, Mommin’ It Up.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

waving flagPosted on October 3, 2015Philip Hodges

Of course she’s afraid to say one way or the other whether an unborn child with a human heart and a human liver is a human being. If she says it is a human being, then she knows the next question will be something like, “Then how is abortion not murder?” If she says that the unborn baby is not a human being, then she’d be asked, “Then, what is it, and at what point does it ‘become’ a human being? And based on what?”

She doesn’t want to deal with that. I completely understand. I wouldn’t want to deal with those questions either if I believed that abortion is a woman’s “God-given right.”

Pelosi was visibly flustered when questioned by a CNS News reporter:


“Ideological questions?” These questions get to the heart of the matter. The reporter probably anticipated that Pelosi would prevaricate. There’s no way Pelosi would take a stand and commit to a yes or no answer. Her only defense is to call it an “ideological question” and claim that it has no place in public policy.

Then, she goes on to explain her own ideology. She’s a “devout, practicing Catholic” with five kids. And her youngest was born when her oldest was only six. Therefore, she knows more about abortion than the questioner.

But what does that have to do with the question of whether or not a baby in a mother’s womb is a human being? It’s a very simple question. If the reporter had asked just about any other “devout, practicing Catholic” the same question, he would have gotten an immediate response in the affirmative.

Pelosi might be a nominal Catholic, but she’s a politician first. She’s got lobbyists to bow to and donors to please. She can’t let morality or “ideology” get in the way of public policy.

I AM A PERSON with Poem In God We Trust freedom combo 2


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 551 other followers

%d bloggers like this: