It turns out we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg with the slaughter of those students at Umpqua Community College.
We had already seen glimpses of the killer’s hatred — especially of Christians — in the initial accounts of surviving witnesses. But others are now painting a more complete picture of his cruelty.
He said he’d spare an 18 year old girl if she begged for her life. She begged. He shot her anyway.
The doomed Christians were ordered to crawl to the middle of the room before being shot dead.
Evidence already suggests that this was planned some time before. It was calculated, deliberate. He wanted people to die.
We know by his choice of victims that this was not random. He hated a particular, identifiable group. He hated Christians and wanted them to die.
Any other group so clearly singled out, and the bandwagon would inevitably roll out some kind of a hashtag-lives-matter campaign — vigils, t-shirts, the whole shebang.
As Caleb Howe rightly points out, when the narrative suits the usual talking heads, they will dive headlong into questions of “motivation”.
But this tragedy didn’t play by their rules. There is no helpful racial angle, no way to blame the victims.
So, in keeping with that “never let a crisis go to waste” motto, they are trying to bring the story back to that well-worn path: gun control.
Never let the story get away from the intended narrative. And definitely steer it away from any conversation about the growing number of Christians targeted by violence.
No, they will steer this story back to gun control. Of course they will. They have to.
Because where we see a tragedy born out of cruel hate, they see an opportunity to harness public emotion for political advantage. Public emotion is gold for politicos with big goals and weak arguments. It’s undirected angst looking for answers, and just look who’s ready to ride in on that white horse to save the day.
Gun control. That’s the solution, right?
If only those students, the ones begging for their lives, and crawling across the floor under a sadist’s gaze had been somewhere else — somewhere safe. Maybe in a gun-free zone. That would have changed everything… right?
Knuckle-dragger that I am, maybe I’m just too thick to see they’ve got a valid point. I mean, just look at how safe their gun laws have made Chicago.
Image: Screen shot: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/02/if-president-obama-had-son-like-oregon-shooter-chris-mercer.html