By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
The tragedy of the deaths and wounding of students and faculty of Umpqua Community College was without doubt a terrible event. We first and foremost must center our prayers and attention towards the victims and their families who have endured suffering and pain that we hope to never experience ourselves.
But if anything can be praised it is the police, emergency crews, and community members who took upon the risks and the responsibility to protect the victims and provide at least a measure of comfort to the survivors and those who did not make it. One person in particular truly caught my attention and I am sure everyone else as well. He is Chris Mintz, who undoubtedly saved several lives but as a result became one of the shooting victims himself.
His actions are truly heroic as you may certainly agree.
Chris Mintz was attending class at Umpqua Community College when he heard shots ring out in an adjacent room. Instead of running for safety, the ten year military veteran went toward the scene, directing people away from the danger. He found and walked toward the shooter, trying to prevent him from entering another classroom by blocking the doorway. He attempted to calm the shooter by talking to him and trying to buy time and life for the other students. Mintz certainly knew the great risk of facing this armed attacker alone and it did not go well for him.
Chris was hit multiple times from gunfire and went down. As the gunman walked toward him, Chris told his assailant that today was his son’s birthday. Showing no mercy his assailant shot him again.
In all Chris was shot seven times trying to protect others. Authorities credit Chris with delaying the shooter and in doing so likely saved numerous lives. Though exact details of the events are still in flux with reporting information, it is clear Chris Mintz’ actions were heroic and lifesaving.
Police arrived six minutes after the active shooter dispatch went out. Every second in distraction of the shooter helped law enforcement arrive and be able to more quickly confront the gunman, who then committed suicide.
A hospital spokesperson stated that Chris suffered hits to his hands, arms, back, stomach and both legs were broken. Despite this he is expected to recover but he will need extensive rehabilitation.
I cannot stress how brave his actions were and how inspiring his story can be for many.
His cousin sponsored a GoFundMe petition to help defray the costs of his medical bills. Social media took hold and contributions from seventeen thousand donors rapidly poured in. Initially ten thousand dollars was requested in the fund drive, but in the first twenty two hours over half a million dollars poured in from grateful citizens. It is certainly enlightening.
I have to stress that Chris Metz was not the only victim and that others suffered as much or worse as lives were tragically lost. Other victims now have similar pages started but have not yet garnered such large donations. Those also deserve contributions as well. Since it is only the beginning of such things I will at a later time attempt to compile a list of other victims’ pages or sources where funds may be directed in their direction.
UPDATE:Officials announced the shooter committed suicide during the shout-out with police.
By Darren Smith
Sources:
CNN
Chris Mintz GoFundMe Page
Northwest Cable News
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Typically the name calling comes from those without any foundation in an argument. The US has morphed into a 21st Century country with a 18th Century mentality regarding guns. The defining argument against this mentality is that it is alone in this way. Every other peer nation enjoys the right for its citizens to own guns, but only when well scrutinized. No other peer nation is remotely afflicted with this disease.
The ability to procure a gun in the US is almost 100% unfettered, due to the perverse interpretations of the 2nd amendment. This is a fact that is proven on a regular basis by the slaughter of innocents by mental retards who get their hands on multiple weapons. Not one mental retard has been stopped by an ‘armed citizen’ as some believe is the answer. Wayne the Peter believes that if Americans ‘arm up’ then the slaughter will be stopped or perhaps mitigated. This is an example of America’s stupidity on this subject. As stupid as it is to say that we all would be safer if we all were packing it is even more stupid to believe that. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. When you find yourself being slaughtered by people who should not have guns, who have dozens of them, then, what, give them more guns?
The argument of the gun lovers is tantamount to the argument of the slave owners. Compare the two across time and the same arguments of ‘rights’, ‘needs’, ‘no other ways’, etc show up.
The solution to this problem must follow its development. Over the past few decades guns have proliferated and become a part of the fabric of those who should not have them. It took years to accomplish this stupidity so it will take years to slow it down, stop it, and perhaps even reverse it. The solution is incremental, starting with more and overwhelming scrutiny regarding gun ownership. This would not offend the 2nd amendment. If the 2nd amendment is so holy, thereby making guns holy, then why not make guns so holy so that only those privileged through an exhaustive scrutiny can own them? The only ones who argue against that are those who probably should not have guns. Any one who takes offense to moves to reduce the carnage by attempting to link the fine tuning necessary to the eradication of the 2nd amendment is in part responsible for the deaths of the innocents. You are either a part of the problem or part of the solution. Voting against strict gun laws and increased scrutiny places you as part of the problem.
issacbasonkavich wrote: “The ability to procure a gun in the US is almost 100% unfettered, due to the perverse interpretations of the 2nd amendment. This is a fact that is proven on a regular basis by the slaughter of innocents by mental retards who get their hands on multiple weapons.”
Issac, do YOU own a firearm for defensive purposes? I suspect that you do not or you would not claim that the ability to procure a gun is almost 100% unfettered.
I did not own a firearm for a long time because I did not want to deal with all the legal aspects of owning one. Eventually as Obama took office, it began to look like I would lose my right to own a firearm. With the threat of terrorism looming larger, I realized that I was neglecting my constitutional duty to protect my family. So then I paid for the required firearms course, paid for the required fingerprinting and background check, paid for the license fee for a concealed weapons permit, and paid hundreds of dollars for a firearm. I would say that the process was time consuming and expensive. Most people would not want to deal with the process.
The schools should actually educate everyone about firearms and provide an easy way for all citizens to be armed. Instead of forcing us to spend thousands of dollars on health insurance we don’t want, the government should give us a tax credit for buying a firearm to protect ourselves and others. That would be real health care that I could believe in.
Legal, but forbidden by campus authorities.
Your point being?
Your constitution and in particular the second amendment has created a terrible mess, which in its present form will ultimately destroy the United States
Gee….thanks for your concern.
Concern Troll definition
A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of “concern,” to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don’t really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.
This guy is a copycat killer. What? You talking to me? 1976 Taxi Driver, Robert De Niro.
LOL!
Annie, I am certain you feel that repeating your point over and over makes you think it’s true, ignoring the rebuttals.
Maybe Max can come and assist by posting several relevant videos for us to scroll by.
KC Fleming
Where is your evidence of intelligence? America is a place where 25% of citizens do not know the Earth orbits the Sun.
In any valid legal document terms, and terms of reference are defined.
The Constitution and its second amendment does not do this and therein lies its weakness.
No matter what the gun lobby argue this matter will be addressed. Sooner or later.
There is no evidence that arming of civilians improves public safety and everybody knows this.
Pro gun arguments are dysfunctional with ulterior motives. They have created a rotten system of terrified and paranoid citizens.
Your constitution and in particular the second amendment has created a terrible mess, which in its present form will ultimately destroy the United States.
Trying to justify it is even more incredible and only makes America the laughing stock of the Western World
ninianpeckitt, you may want to read some of the debate about the 2nd Amendment. Here is one link:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendII.html
I think the House of Representatives debate about the Amendment is particularly interesting. There was a religious exemption clause that was removed.
Here is another link with links to further discussion of the Amendment:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
For the slow learners, conceal carry of guns was allowed on the UCC campus via state law.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/debate-confusion-over-oregons-gun-rules-after-deadly-shooting-n437966
“Backers of tighter gun controls pointed out that Oregon is one of just eight states that legally permit concealed weapons to be carried on campus and that the UCC security policy allowed users to carry weapons “expressly authorized by law.” They in turn charged that gun control foes were trying to steer the conversation away from the latest in a series of deadly school shootings.
Thinking Parker might be able to clear up the confusion about the UCC policy on concealed weapons, NBC News paid a visit to his home on Friday morning.
“I don’t care what the policy is,” he said. “I know what the law is.”
Parker says his right to carry a gun wherever he pleases derives not just from the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but from Article 1, Section 27, of the Oregon Constitution, which states, “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.”
With the permit, Parker said he had no doubt that he had the right to carry the weapon onto the UCC campus and was only sorry that he didn’t have the opportunity to use it.”
Annie quoted an article:
——-
“I don’t care what the policy is,” he said. “I know what the law is.”
Parker says his right to carry a gun wherever he pleases derives not just from the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but from Article 1, Section 27, of the Oregon Constitution, which states, “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.”
With the permit, Parker said he had no doubt that he had the right to carry the weapon onto the UCC campus and was only sorry that he didn’t have the opportunity to use it.”
——
You will always find strong 2nd Amendment people who understand that a higher law protects them. They are advocates of gun rights and are willing to fight for their rights in court. They are aware of court rulings like Bliss v. Commonwealth or District of Columbia v. Heller which declare the local policies unconstitutional after a legal battle in court.
The problem is that the gun free zone policy of the college caused the large majority of students not to challenge the campus policy of prohibiting guns. As a result, a teacher and students stood like sheep led to the slaughter as the killer executed whomever he would at will. If some of these had carried just one firearm and had the courage to understand his duty to protect others, that killer would have been stopped. You don’t stop killers like this one by making sure everyone is disarmed.
davidm The uncontested FACT is that there WERE a number of ARMED students on campus. To deny that FACT is simply the typical conservative denial of reality. The FACT also is that like a holstered gun, they were useless in stopping the killer. The whole idea of having armed students or teachers depends on pure luck in being able to stop such mass murders. Even if a student in that class had been armed, the killer already had the drop on him and probably would have shot him first before he could draw and shoot. If I were a CWP holder in that situation, I would pretend NOT to be armed, until the killer was distracted or had his gun pointed elsewhere. The only way such a gun toting person could have a positive effect would be to be outside the immediate firing zone, and to come in from outside. The best we can do is to cut our losses in such situations and hope that somebody is armed and KNOWS how to shoot straight and fast.
Having regulated armed students or teachers will only increase our chances of stopping such things in the future. It will not stop them entirely. Just as more gun laws will not stop these things either, it WILL make it harder and more difficult for such deranged people to get their hands on firearms. We have to make a rational attempt to attack this problem on BOTH fronts.
randyjet wrote: “The uncontested FACT is that there WERE a number of ARMED students on campus.”
I agree with this fact.
randyjet wrote: “To deny that FACT is simply the typical conservative denial of reality.”
Your ad hominem argument is meaningless without identifying conservatives who deny this fact. The truth is that there are not any. That too is a fact, but I doubt you will acknowledge that fact. So who in reality is denying facts?
randyjet wrote: “The FACT also is that like a holstered gun, they were useless in stopping the killer.”
Right, because there were so few of them and none of them were in the vicinity of the shooter.
randyjet wrote: “The whole idea of having armed students or teachers depends on pure luck in being able to stop such mass murders.”
No, it depends upon the idea of having a well-regulated militia, which means using our educational system to educate about weapons and the duty of citizens to protect one another from harm. If everyone in that college had a sense of duty to protect others, they would carry weapons and use them when danger presented itself.
randyjet wrote: “Even if a student in that class had been armed, the killer already had the drop on him and probably would have shot him first before he could draw and shoot.”
You don’t know this. It is pure speculation. Even if he was rampaging through the area shooting everyone in sight, someone would get the drop on him. The armed police did not seem to have trouble getting the drop on him. Also, accounts from students is that he had people stand up and answer his question of whether or not they were a Christian. If they were a Christian, he shot them in the head, and if they were not, he shot them in the leg. So goes at least one report. Wherever the truth lies, the actions of Chris Mintz, blocking him from going through a doorway, suggests that some armed student could have gotten the drop on him if they were armed.
randyjet wrote: “If I were a CWP holder in that situation, I would pretend NOT to be armed, until the killer was distracted or had his gun pointed elsewhere. The only way such a gun toting person could have a positive effect would be to be outside the immediate firing zone, and to come in from outside.”
I am not buying that. If I were a student in a classroom, when he shot the teacher, I would immediately pull my weapon and stop that man.
randyjet wrote: “The best we can do is to cut our losses in such situations and hope that somebody is armed and KNOWS how to shoot straight and fast.”
From the accounts I have read, this student killer took his time. It was basically a gun free zone for him. He was enjoying himself exercising power over everyone else.
randyjet wrote: “Having regulated armed students or teachers will only increase our chances of stopping such things in the future. It will not stop them entirely.”
I agree. Nevertheless, it also give would be killers pause about whether what they want to do would be worth it. Many of these nuts would not simply exchange their life for killing one person. But if they thought they could take out dozens in a classroom because nobody is armed, that becomes attractive for him as a way to end his life.
I know lots of these frustrated individuals hate police. Why aren’t we always hearing about them going into a police station and killing all the cops? Why do schools seem to be their most popular targets? Could it have anything to do with schools being gun free zones? I think so.
randyjet wrote: “Just as more gun laws will not stop these things either, it WILL make it harder and more difficult for such deranged people to get their hands on firearms. We have to make a rational attempt to attack this problem on BOTH fronts.”
I agree with attacking the problem from both fronts. I think I just value liberty a little more than you do, so where we draw the lines one regulations are a little different.
I agree that mentally ill people, retarded people, very young children (under 12), etc. should not have firearms. I believe in more education about firearm safety and use. Shooting firearm practice should be part of PE in school. Methods of disarming shooters also should be taught. The duty of citizens to protect and help one another should be taught too. If this was part of our educational system, it would be much easier to flag individuals who should not be allowed to be armed.
KCF, I read A Sniper in the Tower and have touted it here and elsewhere. I have a kid I coached in Legion baseball who is a cop. He was an Atlanta cop but got tired of the politics and insanity of a big city. He was hired by the Austin Police. I read the book and told this guy it is a must read for anyone who is an Austin cop. The author did superb research on Whitman and the shooting. There is NO DOUBT if you read the book, that until Citizen cops started firing @ Whitman, making him take cover and move positions, he was picking people off @ will.
I don’t, per se, object to gun laws, but I’m not sure I understand the argument that claims we can prevent murders by outlawing guns. Murder is about as illegal as anything can be, so if someone is going to commit murder do we really think he cares how many laws he breaks? Do we really think that he might want to kill someone but that he can’t do so because he’s unwilling to break a law by illegally obtaining a gun? That’s like a guy who was on his way to blow up his neighbor’s house but was prevented by a No Trespassing sign. “Sure, I can commit mayhem, but tresspassing… Well, I can’t do that.”
Not to make light of it, but what sense does it make to prohibit guns on campus? “Yes, I would really like to go shoot up this campus, but I can’t because they don’t permit guns on campus.” That certainly worked well, didn’t it. If a guy is planning mass murder, what in the hell makes anyone think that breaking a campus rule about guns is going to bother him?
I would also increase the number of prospective armed persons by allowing ALL honorably discharged veterans of a full term of enlistment to be considered for this program. In colleges where there are no law enforcement courses of ROTC, then I would restrict it to CWP holders only.
………One to stiffen requirements for being able to buy firearms and do background checks for ALL gun purchases, with an exemption for antique firearms. That means between private sellers
@ Randy
Just how do YOU propose to have background checks enforced between private sellers? Hmmmmm? Enlighten us on how that would work.
If I decide to trade a 265 Chevy V8 motor (which I have) for a gun instead of selling the motor, how do you plan to enforce that we do background checks?
If Jose in Compton decides to buy a handgun from his buddy Francisco in his street gang, do you REALLY think that they are going to do background checks on themselves or report the transaction. The gun that Francisco has is likely stolen and has changed hands many times.
Seriously…..just HOW do you propose that we have background checks between private sellers.
Get real.
Until we have some Citizen Cop force in place, if you want a Gun Free Zone, you must have a metal detector like airports, courthouses, stadiums, etc. I go to all three often. It’s a real pain in the ass. But, it is the only way to enforce a gun free zone which are now, shooting fish in a barrel zone for angry, disaffected men zones,
In which randyjet uses the one case (Texas) where having multiple armed students actually reduced the killings by a sniper rather quickly, and thinks it somehow supports his claim.
randy, I can agree w/ much of your last statement. Apparently you read the Umqua CC website. As I said earlier, it was Citizen Soldiers who won WW2, and it will be armed, trained, righteous Citizen Cops who WILL WIN this war as well.
I see the usual pro-gun uninformed crazy comments being posted. There is no definition of Arms in the second amendment.
There is also no definition of abortion or homosexual marriage or of marriage of any kind, for that matter, in the Constitution either….and………yet….. 😐
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what the term Arms meant to the people who wrote the Constitution and what it means now. If they had put in a definition would we be limited to black powder muzzle loaded arms today. Of course they didn’t put in a “definition” because being people with way more than two brain cells, they knew that the actual Armaments would change over time. The concept of being able to KEEP and BEAR armaments is the base of the amendment.
1. The weapons and supplies of war with which a military unit is equipped.
2. often armaments All the military forces and war equipment of a country.
3. A military force equipped for war.
4. The process of arming for war.
OK, so now apparently the lemmings acknowledge Umqua was a Gun Free Zone. So now the lying takes another turn. These people who want to control your speech, want your guns as well and they will lie, cheat and steal to get them.
http://mic.com/articles/126203/this-armed-vet-at-umpqua-nails-why-eliminating-gun-free-zones-won-t-stop-mass-shootings
This Armed Vet at Umpqua Nails Why Eliminating “Gun-Free Zones” Won’t Stop Mass Shootings
“Military veteran John Parker Jr. was among the students on campus during the mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, on Thursday, during which Chris Harper Mercer killed 10 people and injured seven. Parker was legally carrying a concealed weapon but chose not to intervene for fear of being mistaken for the gunman, he told MSNBC on Thursday night.
Parker and his fellow students sought refuge in a classroom, where they waited for two hours. Had the gunman come near them, Parker said, he would have defended the group.
“I do happen to conceal carry, myself — for defense of myself and others — just in case a tragedy like this happens and I have to be in close proximity to where I can be involved to try to help save some lives,” Parker said during the interview. “When we found out there was an active shooter on campus, we were going to go and see if we could intervene. … If there was something we could do, we were going to do it.”
Luckily, we made the choice not to get involved,” he said. “We were quite a distance away from the actual building where it was happening, which could have opened us up to being potential targets ourselves. And, you know, not knowing where SWAT was on their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were, and if we had our guns ready to shoot, they’d think we were the bad guys.”
Parker’s story contradicts the common line of argument among pro-gun advocates, who attribute shootings to the presence of “gun-free zones.” Such advocates believe that if citizens had the right to carry weapons, they would be able to defend themselves.”
Gun free zones…… what the libtards think it means