Shooting at Northern Arizona University This Moning - Flagstaff

[Hobbes]

The suspected shooter was an 18-year-old freshman, Steven Jones, who eventually stopped firing and was arrested when police arrived, university police Chief Greg Fowler said at a news conference Friday morning.

The shooting happened during a confrontation between a group of students, Fowler said.

"The shooter produced a handgun and shot four of our other students. One is deceased," Fowler told reporters.

 

[mugsy]

The shooter, contrary to some reports, did not single out Christians. One of the survivors said, "He had us get up, one by one, and asked us what our religions were. The shooter said (they) would only feel pain for a couple of seconds, and that (they) would be with God soon. And then he shot them." He shot them no matter the response. No one was spared because they said they were not Christian.

Ace - is this true based upon a preponderence of evidence or do we just have conflicting accounts by two witnesses? I heard a victim on TV say that she did indeed hear the shooter ask a question about their religion and then differentiate on that basis. So whose story do we believe and why? This isn't aimed at you but rather at how info leaks out on these stories. One witness says "X", another says "Y" - the overall story rather than being clearer is now a mix and we tend to give credence to the parts that we like.

 

[tRidiot]

I agree... I read multiple account from one survivor who said Christians or those who refused to answer were specifically shot in the head, while those who claimed some other religion were shot in the legs. Again... don't know if it is true, but this was a direct quote in multiple articles from a survivor. While both may have been shot, I'd say there is a distinct difference in the response based upon that account that I read. Yes, Ace, you are technically correct that both were shot - but how/where they were shot is quite important.

 

[mugsy]

I see what you're saying. Not sure. School shooters target the school they attend or attended. Workplace shooters target the place they work or worked. Other just pick a public place, like McDonald's, Luby's or a movie theater. There is no data that shows, or even suggest, that shooters target "gun free zones".

That may be true but nonetheless one can easily conceive how gun-free zones are not likely to stop those intent on commiting crimes but do hamper the lawful from defending themselves adequately.
The idea of a gun-free zone seems to be predicated that lawful carriers are really the clear and present danger - another idea that is unsupported by evidence but seems to be the coin of the realm for gun banners. The whole idea is just another example of an intellectual conceit of the left.

The GFZ is very different in concept from having laws that, for instance, say crimes committed using a gun in an area that is primarily for children (school) carries an additional or more severe penalty.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Ace - is this true based upon a preponderence of evidence or do we just have conflicting accounts by two witnesses? I heard a victim on TV say that she did indeed hear the shooter ask a question about their religion and then differentiate on that basis. So whose story do we believe and why? This isn't aimed at you but rather at how info leaks out on these stories. One witness says "X", another says "Y" - the overall story rather than being clearer is now a mix and we tend to give credence to the parts that we like.

There is always uncertainty after an event like this. After the Columbine shooting there were reports that some victims were targeted because of their faith. Turns out, it wasn't true. The killers shot everyone, they didn't care who the victims were or faith they were or weren't.

Cheyeanne Fitzgerald, a survivor, said, "“I don’t think he was really targeting them. I honestly don’t think he was targeting anybody. He just wanted to do it for fun. ‘Cause he still shot every single one that he asked. So I don’t think he was actually targeting a specific religion.”
Rand McGowan, a survivor, said, "The shooter would call a person: ‘You, stand up. And then he would ask them if they were a Christian, knew God, or had religion. And it wasn’t like it was stated on TV. It wasn’t about that he was just trying to pinpoint Christians, no.”
I have yet to find a direct quote from a survivor to the contrary. One survivor's father claimed that non-Christians were shot in the leg instead of the head but there's no proof of that and it contradicts what people that were there said happened.

 

[OKCHunter]

There is no data to suggest that "gun free zones" are being targeted specificity because they are "gun free zones".

Ninety-one of the 134 incidents (68%) took place wholly in private residences. Of the 37 incidents in public spaces, at least 21 took place wholly or in part where concealed guns could be lawfully carried. All told, no more than 17 of the shootings (13%) took place entirely in public spaces that were so-called “gun-free zones.

Just applying logic and rational thinking. I suspect there would be less killing in a mass shooting if citizens were armed instead of disarmed. Let's consider Columbine, Sandy Hook, Colorado Movie Theater, Navy yard and others. Would lives have been saved if they had not been gun free zones and citizens allowed to carry weapons for protection? I say "yes".

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

That may be true but nonetheless one can easily conceive how gun-free zones are not likely to stop those intent on commiting crimes but do hamper the lawful from defending themselves adequately.
The idea of a gun-free zone seems to be predicated that lawful carriers are really the clear and present danger - another idea that is unsupported by evidence but seems to be the coin of the realm for gun banners. The whole idea is just another example of an intellectual conceit of the left.

The GFZ is very different in concept from having laws that, for instance, say crimes committed using a gun in an area that is primarily for children (school) carries an additional or more severe penalty.

GFZ's are, as a concept, ridiculous. Unless you plan on having metal detectors and armed security guards that little No Guns Allowed sign is worthless. And, in fact, there has been shootings at places with both metal detectors and armed security.

 

[Relentless]

There is always uncertainty after an event like this. After the Columbine shooting there were reports that some victims were targeted because of their faith. Turns out, it wasn't true. The killers shot everyone, they didn't care who the victims were or faith they were or weren't.

Cheyeanne Fitzgerald, a survivor, said, "“I don’t think he was really targeting them. I honestly don’t think he was targeting anybody. He just wanted to do it for fun. ‘Cause he still shot every single one that he asked. So I don’t think he was actually targeting a specific religion.”
Rand McGowan, a survivor, said, "The shooter would call a person: ‘You, stand up. And then he would ask them if they were a Christian, knew God, or had religion. And it wasn’t like it was stated on TV. It wasn’t about that he was just trying to pinpoint Christians, no.”
I have yet to find a direct quote from a survivor to the contrary. One survivor's father claimed that non-Christians were shot in the leg instead of the head but there's no proof of that and it contradicts what people that were there said happened.

So you just choose to believe the one that fits your agenda? The other survivor claimed that he shot everyone as well, this account is very similar except she thinks he wasn't targeting christians because he shot people that weren't christian. If he wasn't targeting christians, why would he only bring up on religion specifically?

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

I agree... I read multiple account from one survivor who said Christians or those who refused to answer were specifically shot in the head, while those who claimed some other religion were shot in the legs. Again... don't know if it is true, but this was a direct quote in multiple articles from a survivor.

I have yet to see a direct quote from a survivor to that effect.

Here's another survivor's (Tracy Heu) direct quote that contradicts that the shooter treated Christians differently, "One by one, the gunman called for individuals to stand up -- performing a grim roll call to find out their religion. "He asked them, 'Are you Christian? Do you believe in God?' " Heu said. "And then they said yes and he said, 'Good, I'll send you to God. You'll be visiting God pretty soon,' and he shoots them." Another time Heu said the shooter asked if someone was Catholic "and they said 'yeah' and he still shot them." Heu remained face-down in a pool of blood -- a morbid cover that ultimately saved her life. "I didn't want him to notice that I was still alive, so that he wouldn't point me up," she said. "He was telling (people) that he knows they are still alive and for them to get up." Each time someone stood, Heu said, he or she was shot regardless of the answer. "I don't think he was actually targeting a specific religion," she said. "He just wanted to do it for fun, 'cause he still shot every single one. He started shooting people before even asking."

That's 3 direct quotes from people that were in the room I've cited that contradicts the notion he either targeted Christians or treated Christians differently.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

So you just choose to believe the one that fits your agenda? The other survivor claimed that he shot everyone as well, this account is very similar except she thinks he wasn't targeting christians because he shot people that weren't christian.

Fits my agenda? What would that be, pray tell? As I've said, I have yet to see a direct quote from a person that was actually in the room that the shooter was targeting Christians. It not a matter of which story to believe, I've only seen one story. I've quoted 3 people that were actually in the room, and unless all three are lying, the shooter was not targeting Christians.

If he wasn't targeting christians, why would he only bring up on religion specifically?

As Tracy Heu (she was in the room) said, "I don't think he was actually targeting a specific religion," she said. "He just wanted to do it for fun, 'cause he still shot every single one. He started shooting people before even asking."