The gunman who opened fire at Umpqua Community College killing 9 and wounding another seven, asked his victims to state their religion as he attacked them with three handguns and an assault rifle. He then shot and killed the Christians.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Ana Boylan, a student who was shot in the back, told her grandmother from her hospital bed that as she lay wounded, the gunman, identified as 26-year-old Chris Harper-Mercer, asked people to rise and state their religion.
The gunman, identified Chris Harper Mercer, 26, and a resident of Oregon, is relatively unknown and police are revealing few details about him.
Calling for more gun control legislation, President Obama said, “This is a political choice that we make — to allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction.”
The attack was among the worst mass school shootings over the last two decades, including the one at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999 in which 13 people were killed; the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut in 2012, which claimed 26 lives; and the rampage at Virginia Tech in 2007, in which 32 people were killed.
Ana Boylan, 18, was wounded in the back by the gunman. She lay on the ground and pretended to be dead. She said the girl next to her was shot.
“As Boylan lay there, she heard the gunman ask others in the classroom to rise and state their religion. If they said they were Christians, they were shot.” Police confirmed that the victims were asked their religion before they were shot.
Umpqua has a student population of about 3,300 full- and part-time students. According to the campus website, it offers “a peaceful, safe atmosphere and year-round recreational activities.” None of its employees or its single security officer is permitted to carry a gun. The campus is a gun-free zone.
“I have been shown that the Spirit of the Lord is being withdrawn from the earth. God’s keeping power will soon be refused to all who continue to disregard His commandments. The reports of fraudulent transactions, murders, and crimes of every kind are coming to us daily. Iniquity is becoming so common a thing that it no longer shocks the senses as it once did.” Last Day Events, page 27
Source Reference
Comments
Jason W
Monday October 12th, 2015 at 12:09 PMThis attack has one criteria that is a constant in the majority if not all of the shootings that have occurred. They are all “gun-free” zones. The attacker knew that no one could stop the attack. If it had not been a “gun-free” zone then there would have been the potential that it could have been stopped. If the attacker knew that someone might have had the means to stop them, then that in itself would have been a deterrent. The attackers in these situations know that the people they are going to attack are “sitting ducks” and that they will not be able to stop the attack. I do not believe that this was classified as a hate crime, but it truly was. If I recall correctly the attacker in this case had been seeking help and they knew they were not stable. The system let this man down and all of the victims. This is just another excuse to try to control our amendment right to self defense. When these attacks occur many people blame “guns” rather than the person and the system that allows it to happen in the first place. Guns do not kill people without a person pulling the trigger! Remember that if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns!
Dennis
Thursday October 15th, 2015 at 11:15 AMI agree with Jason W. We can learn from history what is possible when the populace is not allowed to protect themselves. After World War II, the people of Japan had no firearms. Only the military possessed weapons. Compare that with the general population in the United States during World War II. If any Japanese forces had landed on the west coast, they would not have gotten very far. Every wife, mother, and grandmother would have pulled out their shotguns. The ethics of this can be discussed, but from a societal viewpoint, self-preservation is equated with freedom from tyranny.