Hanlin letter

I have no idea why Sheriff Hanlin felt the need to write to Joe Biden, but something must have set him off.

The irony of his words hit home tonight. Sheriff John Hanlin is the sheriff of Douglas County where there was a mass murder at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon.

Sheriff Hanlin must be feeling rather impotent tonight as 10 students  lay dead and 7 others are hospitalized with life-threatening wounds from a crazed gunman with 4 guns opened fire on innocent people, just trying to get an education.

So we now need to ask ourselves as Americans how many more lives have to be lost because some bat-shit crazy man decides to randomly blow away innocent people to please whatever demons possess him.   I refuse to believe that there are no answers.  Other countries don’t have mass murders every other week.

President Obama is right about numbness.  I have almost become desensitized.  How many more school shootings need to happen?  These school shootings make a good argument for home schooling and distance learning.  They also make a strong argument  for change regarding how we purchase and store our guns in this country.

 

55 thoughts on “Oregon Sheriff must have fallen asleep at the switch…

  1. Cargosquid

    “They also make a strong argument for change regarding how we purchase and store our guns in this country.”

    How so?

    Most bought their guns after going through all the gun control laws.
    Lanza had access to the safe, either normally, or after he murdered his mother.
    Straw buyers bought the Columbine guns.

    We don’t know how the current idiot got the gun. So far, his motive seems to be anti-Christian. He asked victims their religion and killed anyone saying “Christian.”

    As for Hanlin’s response, it was perfectly reasonable and respectful in the face of administration comments about gun control. Nothing he said addressed the current shooting.

    1. Does the irony escape you?

      All those mass murders and after each one, there is a reason why this, that and the other wouldn’t work.

      Let me ask you, are you satisfied with the status quo?

    2. Actually, according to the news, he shot both Christians and those who were non-Christians or those who refused to answer. Apparently location was the only difference.

  2. Cargosquid

    No…I’m not satisfied with the status quo. But I don’t support the infringement of rights to change it.

    The reason you get these reasons is because gun control advocates keep presenting the same failed arguments.

    1. You say “gun control advocate” like you just stepped in dog crap on the sidewalk. Doesn’t that pretty much include everyone who wants to jostle the status quo even a little bit?

      “Gun control” might very well mean keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable?

      Failed arguments? Sort of difficult to assess failure if something hasn’t been tried.

  3. Lyssa

    Says it all doesn’t it. Hope he re-read it and feels proud of his stance.

    There is only one correct view here. And it’s not 2nd Amendment. It’s about respecting life and against domestic terrorism. We control things that have potential to do harm.

  4. Lyssa

    Since Sandy Hook, there has been nearly one school shooting a week
    OCT. 1, 2015
    There have been 142 school shootings in the U.S. since 20 children and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. on Dec. 14, 2012. Incidents were classified as school shootings when a firearm was discharged inside a school building or on campus, as documented in news accounts. Incidents in which guns were brought into schools but not fired, or were fired off school grounds after having been possessed in schools, were not included.

  5. Steve Thomas

    Um…Oregon passed the “Universal Background Check” system, as did Washington state. The same one so many politicians are pushing in response to incidents where deranged people, bent on killing, choose a gun to commit multiple murder.

    You want irony? The fact that “Universal Background Checks” didn’t prevent this crime is ironic. Also ironic, the school campus is a “gun free zone”, so “gun free” that the completely disarmed students and faculty were “protected” by a single, unarmed security person. Yet, somehow this law/policy couldn’t stop a criminal from carrying a gun on campus, and there wasn’t anyone who could meet the threat. That’s irony.

    Much more ironic than a sheriff who gets it: laws only apply to the law-abiding. Evil respects no law. Our founders understood this. The sheriff understands.

  6. Steve Thomas

    And I do consider this an act of terror. It is been reported by multiple witnesses that the killer specifically targeted Christians.

  7. Pat.Herve

    A very complex problem with no easy solution. And yet, our elected leaders just keep kicking the can down the road. Surely there is some legislation that can help – but laws alone are not enough. We need to discover why there is such discontent in these people and see if there is any way to prevent the next one. Knowing full well that we cannot stop all of them, but we should be able to reduce it. But we will kick it down the road instead of having a debate and conversation around a solution.

    1. Most of the ages of the shooters in massacres is young adulthood. All have been male, to my knowledge. The onset of schizophrenia is generally at young adulthood. I don’t think there is malcontent as much as just being effen nuts.

      I still think that someone knows they aren’t wrapped too tight.

      The real problem is fairly basic–how do you keep these people who are effen nuts away from weapons that can kill multiple people.

      You obviously can’t just ban every weapon that can be used to massacre. You obviously can’t lock up all the people from 15 to 35 or keep them from owning weapons.

      I don’t claim to have the answers. I just really don’t like the NRA stance which, from my vantage point, says tough shit we aren’t changing one iota. I just don’t think you can say tough shit. You can say it but its going to make people hate you. If enough people hate you, you will lose rights. It seems to me that becoming part of the problem solving of this conundrum is really in 2A-er’s best interest, rather than the in your face F-you.

  8. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    Gun control has been attempted, from the mild control of Vermont to the gun bans of Chicago and DC.

    There are already laws prohibiting those ruled mentally incompetent or dangerous from owning guns.

    Developing ways to ID those people better is not gun control. Its already illegal for them to have one.

    Gun control is restricting law abiding citizens from exercising a an inalienable right.

    @Pat.Herve
    Pat, we’ve been having this conversation for decades. The problem is that the solutions presented by the gun control side all have the same elements: control law abiding people.

    You are right…. its about those people. Why are they like that? What is it that makes them violent?

    Regardless…. this man had the right idea on how to stop these murderers…….
    Too bad he wasn’t allowed the most effective tools to do so.
    Funny…we saw the same courage and lack of access to the best tools at Sandy Hook.
    You would think that society would have learned something about the problems of limiting options.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/02/forget-oregon-s-gunman-remember-the-hero-who-charged-straight-at-him.html?source=TDB&via=FB_Page

    We need to find a way to stop them without infringing upon rights. Its too easy to do that in the idea that the society becomes more secure.

    1. Cargo said:

      There are already laws prohibiting those ruled mentally incompetent or dangerous from owning guns.

      Developing ways to ID those people better is not gun control. Its already illegal for them to have one.

      Obviously that isn’t working. I consider better ID methods gun control also. You are controlling them having a gun. Seriously, we can’t have a serious discussion parsing words and phrases.

      You and I both know that a person has to be involuntarily committed to get on a “do not sell to” list. It’s very difficult to have a person involuntarily committed.

      This is where some crafty legislation is going to have to take place. It’s a balancing act between individual rights and privacy and public safety.

      I think we can all agree that the status quo is simply unacceptable. Punishment doesn’t work. Killing them like a bad dog doesn’t either because you are rid of them but they have already taken out dozens of people.

  9. Censored bybvbl

    @Cargosquid

    As a person who has made more than 12,000 posts on the internet, mostly about guns, are you being paid to post by any organization?

  10. Starryflights

    Congratulations to Sherriff Hanlin. He got his request fulfilled. Hope he is enjoying the results.

  11. @Steve Thomas

    I am not so sure he understands all that much, just listening to him.

    When did the shooter buy the guns? Oregon just got the background check law recently. I believe (but don’t hold me to it) the law went into effect on July 1, 2015.

    I am not believing this shooter was normal. I am willing to bet that he stood out to someone as being a little quirky.

    What is making mass massacre more frequent? More guns? Crazier people? Copy cat?

  12. @Steve Thomas

    According to most accounts, he disliked organized religion. I wouldn’t consider it a war on Christians. Those who said they were Christians got shot in the head. Those who said no or didn’t answer got shot in the legs.

    One screwed up individual, if you ask me, which I know you didn’t. I think all massacres where more than 1 person is killed are terrorism, unless the people know each other. then it is an altercation gone bad.

  13. Starryflights

    Every country has its share of nut cases. The difference between us and countries like Britain or Canada is that ours allows the nut cases easy access to guns. We are more like Somalia or Nigeria in terms of who we allow to possess weapons.

  14. Ed Myers

    Gun culture promoters have made guns the anti-societal primal scream of choice for the cray-cray. They have got what they wanted….frequent gun use.

    here are ideas that would reduce gun violence without affecting constitutional rights but they are all DOA with gun rights activists.
    1) Make guns work only with the owner and not someone else who has stolen the gun or finds it lying around. (aka Smart Guns).
    2) Invent and require ammunition that has bullets that decelerate rapidly so that it is not lethal at a distance beyond of 30 feet or so. People intent on murder want to kill people far away. Those who want only to shoot someone as a last resort will not lose their self defense rights if they can’t kill someone outside their 30ft safety zone.
    3) Require guns to have insurance to compensate for misuse. Would so many people have guns if the true cost of ownership (30,000 dead per year, many more injured) were priced into the cost of maintaining a gun? Register every gun and bullet and hold the purchaser responsible for any misuse. (If it was stolen the gun owner is responsible for failure to secure. See smart gun for safe harbor.) Instead we are lax on holding gun owners responsible and the cost of gun violence is spread as a tax on all of us.
    4) Make bullets that won’t fire in a hot gun. Then mass murderers have to carry many guns to do their dastardly deeds. Someone carrying multiple guns is easily identified as a terrorist since no innocent and reasonable gun owner is exercising their rights to self defense by carrying multiple guns.

  15. Pat.Herve

    @Cargosquid
    The problem is that the solutions presented by the gun control side all have the same elements: control law abiding people.

    Can you point me to some solutions suggested by pro 2A advocates? Thanks.

  16. Aren’t most of the shooters law abiding until they aren’t? By then, its too late.

    This one had been in an ED class. Emotionally disturbed should have its very own red flag. Maybe it shouldn’t automatically prevent someone from access to a gun but it should slow things down.

    I simply don’t feel everyone has a right to own a firearm. There are too many toads in the world. Save it because my life experience tells me this in no uncertain terms. It isn’t all about being law-abiding. There are other factors.

  17. blue

    Moon-howler :

    I don’t claim to have the answers.

    I am just tired of you liberals who would immediately seek Administrative restrictions on the 2nd amendment, without any data and because you have no other answers that fit into your ideology. I ran accross this today and offer it it for your consideration

    A professor from Purdue researched mass shootings from the 1950s on and discovered that only two of them occurred where guns are legal to be carried. This really blows apart liberal arguments that more guns means more mass shootings. Between 2004 and 2012, gun ownership increased by 61%. But since 2008, violent crimes decreased by 12.9%. Eric Dietz, Ph.D., the former director of Homeland Security for the state of Indiana and a 22-year Army veteran, and now a professor at Purdue University, set out to find out how armed citizens could prevent deaths.

    In order to examine the results, he chose to study the most common gun free zone in America, and also the place most mass shootings take place, (Outside of Chicago) public schools. Dietz outlined 4 scenarios and using statistical math, developed a model whereby he could estimate the results. He noted that since schools are gun free, they have to rely on the police, who on average take 10 – 12 minutes to respond to a live shooting. Given the fact that a mass shooter can kill a person every twenty seconds, the delay can costs a lot of lives.

    Here are the four scenarios Dietz used in his study:

    • Scenario 1: No access to control or security.
    • Scenario 2: Resource officer
    • Scenario 3: 5-10 percent of work force has concealed carry
    • Scenario 4: 5-10 percent of work force has concealed carry and a resource officer

    In study number one, it was determined that the most crucial aspect is time. The more time a shooter has, the more people he can kill.

    Moving on to the second scenario, that includes an armed resource officer, casualties dropped by a whopping 66.5% and response time was cut by 59.5%.

    In the third scenario, with 5%-10% of the workforce armed, there is a decrease in fatalities of when 5% of the workforce is carrying concealed weapons of 6.8% and response time is reduced by 5.4%. When 10% of the workforce is armed causalities dropped by 23.2% and response time was slashed by 16.8%.

    But the most amazing statistic is that when 5% of the workforce is armed AND they have a resource officer present, the fatality rate drops 69.2% and response time improved by 57.9%. With 10% armed and a resource officer, the fatality rate drops by 70.2% and response time by 62.7%.

    1. Blue, I am tired of idiots trying to put on a political party hat over something as tragic as a massacre. So I guess we are both tired.

      I don’t think anyone wants their resource officer used as a security guard. That isn’t the function of a resource officer. I don’t think that guns belong in school on anyone but LEOs. Who gets to carry and who doesn’t. Sorry, I have known too many assholes who would misuse their “power.” It would be a dangerous situation.

      If the citizens want schools protected, hire security guards for the schools. Don’t give the teachers one more job to do. I don’t even care if the security guards aren’t LEOs.

  18. punchak

    @blue
    Why are mass killings rare in Europe? – and don’t come back with the
    crazed guy in Norway! Scandinavians are avid hunters and, consequently,
    have guns, yet deaths from guns are very rare. Maybe because hunting
    rifles are impossible to hide in pockets and glove compartments?
    What do YOU think?

  19. Lyssa

    Um where is the money from the NRA to begin to support mental health needs both financially and as a lobby. Recall the last event we finally concluded that the NRA does consider they have some role to play. (Actually the NRA a said it and that was a revelation).

    So, um, pony up NRA. Be the image of responsible gun ownership. Spend money on that.

    1. I agree. That’s where it is going to have to happen. Everyone isn’t going to get to have a gun. that’s just all there is to it.

      Right now there is some kind of disconnect. Parsing of words, slogans, etc…and more dead people.

      Come on NRA, blame mental health. Works for me. Mass killings are epidemic. EPIDEMIC!

  20. Scout

    I’ve never understood the argument that gun control laws only apply to the law-abiding (see, e.g., Cargo at #12). How is that different than laws against drunk driving, bank robbery or child molesting? Isn’t the point that you define some conducts as unacceptable legally and punish those who don’t comply?

    1. I was sort of implying that also when I said everyone is law-abiding until they aren’t. Many of these people go along with the rules until they go postal and kill 10 people. Then they aren’t law-abiding.

  21. Lyssa

    This is too much. John Hanlin is associated with a “truther” video claiming conspiracies about Sandy Hook – among them that the grieving parents were really actors.

    Yup. This sheriff “really gets it” alright.

    1. Now that’s a real case of Karma is a bitch!!!!!!!

      Starry, you are right. He is a POS. Karma is going to be chasing his ass for eternity and rightfully so.

      How can anyone say one of these mass murders is staged? He has lost all credibility.

  22. Kelly_3406

    I think the debate should focus on areas where common ground can be found. This blog is supposed to go beyond partisanship, but most of the discussion has focused on forcing gun control on the 50% or more of citizens that do not agree.

    We can all agree that mental illness and the desire for notoriety played significant roles. It seems to me that initial solutions could involve:

    1) Strengthen laws to allow more of the insane/mentally ill to be involuntarily committed. Mental illness has been a key ingredient in the last few incidents, but as far as I know, nothing has changed.

    2) Stop providing a forum to air the killers’ grievances. This national soul searching and discussion of their views are exactly what these killers want. We should try to shun the media crisis prostitutes that cover this 24/7. If the coverage and airing of grievances are reduced, the motivations for mass killing are reduced.

    I am convinced that this national hand wringing could easily stimulate an unstable person to plan the next mass murder.

    1. Actually I agree with much of what you have said. Of course the mental health field is going to howl bloody murder if it all gets pinned on them and then we run into the HIPAA laws. There must be a common ground but everyone is going to have to give a little. Right now, that isn’t happening on either side…guns or mental health.

      I just heard on TV that these people who do this aren’t really mentally ill. I was yelling at the TV, of course. This was someone in that field. I was yelling that normal people don’t commit mass murder in cold blood.

      I would severe off a few layers on the gun side also.

      Let me run one past you. I have heard from multiple sources that this kid was in an ED class. Emotionally Disturbed. Today that label has changed to learning disabled which unfortunately gets to be the catch all for anything “other.” Let’s say that the ED label is valid. Would you be comfortable with making someone with that school label having a gun restriction?

      I am not so sure I would. Kids have things happen in their lives that can throw them off kilter. Many grow up to be perfectly normal adults. Some stay crazier than Hell.

      I don’t know the answer. All I do know is that the NRA and many of its supporters come out instantly and state that they won’t give an inch. I have a real problem with that. Having a right to bear arms doesn’t open up the armory to whatever you want.

  23. Lyssa

    Blu- I want tighter backgrounds and more focus on mental health reporting which goes to backgrounds. I want the NRA to lobby for that. I’m not for more gun control – we have a few.

    I just want the largest “no compromise” of the those bottom feeding groups of lobbyist to act on it.

  24. Ed Myers

    I think the “attack on Christians” meme is a real interesting development. Will this split the religious right from the tea party because the RR needs some government action on guns to satisfy their persecution complex and the TEA party needs no action to preserve their right to enact insurrection fantasies.

    The WP notes that white men are 8x more likely to die from their own gun than someone else’s. This is proof that gun owners have an larger than normal cohort of stupid and crazy.

    1. The “war on Christians” just isn’t going to fly with me.

  25. The more I think about this Barny Fife Sheriff accusing the Sandy Hook parents of being posers, the angrier I get.

    What is wrong with people? Hopefully, people with some decency will mention it enough and his constituency will vote him out of office.

  26. Kelly_3406

    @Moon-howler

    I would be very hesitant for labels identifying special students to be used overtly as justification for denying gun purchases or to place them on a watch list. It would discourage students from getting the help they need and would cause parents to fight tooth and nail to keep their kids out.

    1. Good point. Of course, the thought of parents fighting an ED placement because then their kid couldn’t buy a gun….hmmmm…

      I think that the label should be a red flag but every word you say is correct. Parents would fight tooth and nail and frankly, I don’t blame them.

      So we are back to square one.

      My solution is distance learning. Your daughters are less likely to be sexually assaulted and your kids of any gender are less likely to be involved in a massacre.

      Sitting in class is highly over-rated. You can learn on the computer just as easily. I have taken one distance class. It was difficult and I learned as much as I did sitting in class. My daughter is a ASU student. I feel safer just knowing that she isn’t on campus.

    2. We are right back to square one. I think an ED placement is a warning that there are emotional problems. However, I spent all day yesterday listening to various “experts” in the field of mental health saying that these killers weren’t necessarily mentally ill. I was screaming at my TV. What the hell are they then? It isn’t normal emotionally to gun people down in cold blood.

      I don’t trust the mental health “experts” any more than I trust the NRA wing nuts. Everyone is manipulating his or her own turf. I heard mental health spewing an equal amount of bS. OMG.

  27. Kelly_3406

    @Moon-howler

    I don’t think parents would necessarily fight ED placement because their kids could not buy a gun. They would fight it to avoid the unintended consequences that would surely result. If the kids were categorized as too much of a risk to purchase a gun, then they would be viewed as too much of a risk for many other activities as well. People would probably choose to avoid them, which would turn them into loners/outsiders very much separated from society. As a result, they might have trouble getting accepted into college or finding jobs as adults.

    1. I was being a smart ass about the gun….sorry. Many do fight those placements for the very reasons you give. Labels stick. I suppose if I were one of those parents, I would be asking how that placement would help my child and what different educational accommodations would be activated to help him or her as well as how instruction would be different in that class.

      In PWC, it has been my experience that many of those kids get the label and then get placed in the regular classroom and in reality, receive no specialized help, regardless of what the paperwork says. Sorry, but that’s the reality of the situation. Same with LD kids.

      Basically, we can’t do anything based on what someone MIGHT do. Therein lies the problem. Once someone has mowed down 10 people in cold blood, you get your probable cause.

  28. Kelly_3406

    I am glad that you found a good solution for your daughter. It took me several attempts before I successfully completed an online course. Perhaps she is more mature than I was. A difference now may also be that technology is so much better, with online “chalk” boards and interactive activities to improve learning.

    My daughter is in college also, but I have not been overly concerned about violence. Perhaps I should be. I have given my daughter advice such as to avoid walking alone after dark. Hopefully she takes a few precautions.

    1. In fairness, my daughter is older than yours. She has a grown daughter. Her college is through her employer. She also transferred in her credits.

      I wouldn’t have been able to do it as a normal age college student either. When I took the one I took I was very long in the tooth and had acquired self-discipline. I just had a LOT of trouble with the constructions that I had to do. Otherwise, I aced the course. It would be easy for me to do now. (unless the material was way over my head) As a normal college aged kid, I would have failed. What a difference the decades make. ho ho ho. Boys, drinking and friends are fairly unimportant to me now. but you knew that…..

  29. Kelly_3406

    Moon-howler :
    I was being a smart ass about the gun….sorry.

    It is sometimes hard to read context from electrons on a screen. This is why online courses are hard IMO. Communication from tone, body language and context is missing, which makes online learning difficult compared to in-person instruction from a talented, motivated teacher.

    1. It’s getting a lot better with the addition of videos and skype, etc. I enjoyed that geometry course I took. It had a lot of stuff in it that I didn’t know. I had wrongfully assumed that I would be able to just sail through it and that I knew it all. ho ho ho….such was not the case.

      What I felt I missed was having to beat my way over to NOVA after working all day. I only had to go on campus to take tests.

  30. Scout

    good point, Kelly, re on line courses. They serve a purpose and reach people who might otherwise have to do without. But one loses something in the process.

  31. Cargosquid

    @Censored bybvbl
    I wish I was getting paid by posts…..

    But this hobby is cheaper than golf.

  32. Cargosquid

    Ed Myers :
    I think the “attack on Christians” meme is a real interesting development. Will this split the religious right from the tea party because the RR needs some government action on guns to satisfy their persecution complex and the TEA party needs no action to preserve their right to enact insurrection fantasies.
    The WP notes that white men are 8x more likely to die from their own gun than someone else’s. This is proof that gun owners have an larger than normal cohort of stupid and crazy.

    Wow…. Christians are actually killed and you bring up a “persecution complex.” And then you invent Tea Party insurrection fantasies for some reason.

    As for the WP….. you might want to provide a link…because that assertion looks incredibly off.

    1. In this country, you are sort of killing Christians if you kill anyone since Christianity is the major religion. I hardly call it a war on Christians.

  33. Cargosquid

    Aha….I think I found the source of Ed’s attempt to say something useful about guns.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/03/22/gun-deaths-shaped-by-race-in-america/

    This presents the info that whites commit suicide at higher rates than blacks.
    Excerpt:
    A white person is five times as likely to commit suicide with a gun as to be shot with a gun; for each African American who uses a gun to commit suicide, five are killed by other people with guns.

    This makes sense since 2/3 of all “gun deaths” are suicide and most of those are white people.

  34. Censored bybvbl

    For a long but interesting read about the lack of informative data (and,thus, possible solutions) on gun violence:
    http://everytownresearch.org/reports/access-denied/

  35. Cargosquid

    Be aware that Everytown is a propaganda arm of Bloomberg and Mayors Against Illegal Guns is notorious for dishonesty.

    The CDC is not banned from research, but for any advocacy against civil liberties. Scientists admitted to building studies in order to demonize guns. They had preconceived results. THAT was the cause of the ban on tax money.

  36. Censored bybvbl

    @Cargosquid

    The CDC is not banned from research, but for any advocacy against civil liberties.

    So they are banned. If their data would revel that certain behaviors, gun types, mental illnesses, easy access to certain types of weapons, etc. results in more injuries or deaths, they’re restricted from advocating for changes that the gun-huggers might think restrict their right to participate in their fairytale militias – those groups they feel may be necessary to overthrow what they deem an oppressive government- or to own an arsenal of whatever they can afford to buy. The fairytale militias are what it’s all about. The NRA can use its propaganda to scare old, out-of-shape guys and gals and no one can provide the counterpoint. Read the article and despite the funding problems.

    Let’s not advocate for safer environments or adequately fund ATF or the FBI so they can track trends. Ignorance the ticket….

  37. Cargosquid

    @Censored bybvbl

    Wow….where do you get, “So they are banned.” from “The CDC is not banned from research,”?

    The “scientists” admitted to politics, not science. They admitted that they created studies to reach a preconceived result. They admitted that their purpose was to demonize guns. That is not science.

    As for the “right to participate in a militia..” When you present falsehoods like that even after you have been educated, you do not help your position. The article is claptrap.

    The ATF and FBI are adequately funded. They track trends every day. The ATF is so funded, that they have money to waste on smuggling guns illegally.

    I understand that you are a gun control bigot that lives in a fantasy land. I say this due to your insulting words and dishonest statements.

    I’m sorry that you are willing to support liars and dishonest people to push your agenda.

Comments are closed.