Odessa Rampage Killer Showed Red Flags

There is new information about the man who committed mass murder in a shooting rampage in Midland and Odessa, Texas over the weekend. While the man apparently did not have a recent criminal record, he allegedly did commit acts that would be considered “red flags” before his killing spree.

The New York Post reports that two of 36-year-old Seth Ator’s neighbors reported the man’s threatening behavior. One neighbor reported Ator to police last month after he had threatened her with a rifle for leaving trash near his property. The woman said that Ator would often sit on top of his house and shoot animals at night and then retrieve the bodies. The woman reported Ator’s threatening behavior to police, but they could not find his house because it did not have an accurate address for GPS navigation.

The woman said that Ator’s house did not have electricity or running water and that he would sleep in his car with the heat on in extremely cold weather. Photos of a house believed to be Ator’s published in online news media such as Heavy show a barn-like structure with a boxy addition on the roof that resembles a hunting blind.

A second neighbor also told the Post that Ator had threatened her with his rifle. It was not clear if this incident had been reported to police, but the woman said that Ator owned at least two guns.

A third neighbor told Heavy that Ator “didn’t bother anybody.”

Ator had a criminal record, but it was almost two decades old. He had pled guilty to criminal trespass and evading arrest in 2002. Both crimes are misdemeanors in Texas. This would not have prevented him from legally buying a gun since only misdemeanors that are related to assault are disqualifying under Texas law. Even then, people convicted of misdemeanors are allowed to possess guns after five years. Rep. Tom Craddick, a Texas Republican, said that Ator had failed a background check but did not say when the check occurred. So far, there has been no confirmation of that claim except for a nonspecific tweet by Gov. Greg Abbott. The Washington Examiner also reported that Ator had received a traffic citation in 2018 for a federal motor carrier safety violation.

https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1168554204065087489?s=20

Additional reports say that Ator was fired from his job as a truck driver shortly before he was stopped by Texas Department of Public Safety troopers for a failure to signal a left turn in his personal auto. During the traffic stop, Ator pulled out what police describe as an “AR-style rifle” and attacked the officers. He then drove away and fired at innocent civilians as he drove through the neighboring towns of Midland and Odessa.

Unlike mass killings and serial murders years ago in which neighbors often said that the perpetrator was normal and not suspicious, in many modern rampage killings there are a number of warnings before the massacre. In the case of the Odessa murders, the killer exhibited threatening behavior on at least two occasions. Frequently shooting animals from his roof could be a red flag as well, although the report is not specific about Ator’s actions. Cruelty to animals (which does not traditional hunting) is an early warning sign for many murderers.

Even though Ator exhibited classic red flag warning signs, red flag laws may not have prevented this specific killing spree. Laws vary by state and in many cases only a close relative can petition to have guns taken from a person who shows signs of potential violence. With only two neighbors experiencing his threatening behavior and no recent criminal history, a red flag statute might not have been triggered.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said over the weekend that “Words must be met with action” but has not backed any specific new laws yet although red flag laws have gained widespread popularity among both parties. Recent polling shows about 70 percent support for the measures.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Warning Bells For 2020

In modern turbine airplanes, when something goes wrong it triggers a chime in the cockpit and a flashing light to get the pilots’ attention, along with a message that describes the problem. Problems that are serious but that aren’t yet life-threatening present an amber caution light and single chime. If a problem is serious enough, triple-chime sounds and a red warning light flashes. The chimes continue and the lights flash until the pilot presses the button to cancel the alarm. Sometimes, when things get really bad, the messages are generated so fast that the chimes are going off continuously.

Over the last week leading up to the Resurgent Gathering in Atlanta, that has been the case for the Republican Party. Warning lights have been flashing, one after another, for days on end. Last week began with a discussion about President Trump’s tweets about Baltimore. The tweets were widely interpreted to have racial overtones and, whether that was the president’s intention or not, it put a predominantly white party in the awkward position of explaining to 38 million black Americans why Donald Trump is not a racist.

The president’s tweets were not problematic only for their effect on race relations. On August 2, Mr. Trump tweeted that Kim Jong Un “has a great and beautiful vision for his country” and called the North Korean dictator “a friend” despite North Korea’s launch of two short-range missiles. The president further tweeted that “these missiles tests are not a violation of our signed Singapore agreement” although he conceded “there may be a United Nations violation.”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1157306452228366336?s=20

Outside of Twitter, last week also gave us the abortive John Ratcliffe nomination to replace Dan Coats as director of national intelligence. Ratcliffe is a Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee, but otherwise had scant qualifications for the top intelligence post except for the fact that he seemed to have caught Trump’s attention with his questioning of Robert Mueller. With public opposition to the nomination from Democrats and little, if any, support from Republicans, President Trump withdrew the nomination on Friday, less than a week after he had made it.

Yet another caution chime is the building wave of Republican retirements for 2020. On Thursday, Rep. Will Hurd, the sole black Republican in the House, announced his retirement. Hurd was a frequent critic of Donald Trump, including saying that Trump’s tweets were “in essence telling someone because you don’t look like them, that you are not American,” but said on ABC News that he plans “to support the Republican nominee.”

More than his differences with Donald Trump, Hurd may be worried about re-election. His 23^rd district in Texas, with a majority Hispanic population, is a swing district that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. In 2018, Hurd won by less than 1,000 votes, a half percent margin.

Hurd isn’t the only Republican stepping down in 2020. Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.) and Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.), two of only 13 House Republican women are retiring next year. The announcement of Rep. Kenny Marchant brings the total of retiring Texas Republicans to four. The two women won their last elections by comfortable margins, but Marchant was re-elected by only three points.

Republicans are retiring for a variety of reasons, but many of those reasons can be traced back to the Trump Administration. Whether the Republicans are personally opposed to Trump or not, many can read the writing on the wall for 2020. In 2018, Republicans lost 60 percent of women and 78 percent of nonwhite voters. Recent polling suggests that 2020 may be worse among both women and minorities, driven largely by his racial tweets. The 2018 Republican losses were presaged by a similar wave of retirements.

The amber cautions turned to a red warning with the El Paso mass shooting. The murder’s manifesto mirrors President Trump’s rhetoric on immigration is only the most recent incident on a growing list of white supremacist and right-wing violence. While there is no evidence that Mr. Trump directly incited the attack, it is credible that his speeches and tweets contributed to the racially-charged political climate that apparently inspired the shooter. In a clear warning sign, a supporter even mentioned shooting illegal immigrants at a Trump rally in Florida back in May.

As I write this, the president is drawing criticism from both sides for his failure to quickly condemn white supremacy after the El Paso shooting. Despite calling the murders “an act of cowardice” and a “hateful act,” the president waited until today, two days later, to specifically condemn the ideology behind the attack.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1157868518823596032?s=20

Earlier today, President Trump did acknowledge the racist motive of the El Paso shooter, saying, “The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online, consumed by racist hate. In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy.”

In an airplane, when these warning and caution chimes go off, the proper response is to “identify, cancel and call for the checklist.” The pilots identify the source of the problem by looking at the message that describes the condition that generated the alert. Then they press the master warning or caution button to cancel the chime and flashing light, acknowledging that they see the problem. Finally, the pilot addresses the problem by calling for the appropriate checklist or memory item for that issue. The problem in today’s GOP is that too many are ignoring the flashing lights and chimes that are warning them of problems.

Often, when there is a serious problem, the stack of alert messages on the screen gets long. A major problem can spark many associated problems in related systems. In many cases, the root cause of the problem is revealed in messages that are near the bottom of the stack since the warning computer posts messages in the order that they occur. An honest appraisal of the current state of the Republican shows that many problem indications can be traced back to President Trump.

Despite all of these things happening over the last week, there was almost no mention of them by the Republican speakers at the Resurgent Gathering. When elected Republicans spoke about the president, it was in glowing terms. One example was Georgia’s Rep. Doug Collins, who said, “The thing I say about this president is that this president is the same on the stage as he is off the stage.”

“He has big ideas that come all the time,” Collins continued. “His ways, at times, can offend people and grate on people. They’re not used to somebody who just comes out and, a lot of the time, just speaks truth. If you hit at him, he will hit you back. I think some people are understanding that now.”

There were hints that some Republicans see that there is a problem. A speaker from the Heritage For America commented, “Some people say the election will be a referendum on President Trump, but that’s defeatist talk.” Reading between the lines, if Donald Trump was a popular president, a referendum on his administration would be a good thing for Republicans and would not be seen as “defeatist.” Likewise, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, while praising the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, remarked that one of the easiest things that President Trump could do to lower taxation and help the economy would be to end the tariff war.

The most direct acknowledgment of the warning chimes was from the Washington Examiner’s David Drucker. Drucker pointed out that while some Republicans look past Trump’s behavior because of his policies, others are being driven toward the Democrats, noting their complaint that, “if one of his rallies is on tv that I can’t watch it with children in the room.” Far from the common assumption that President Trump is assured a landslide in 2020, Drucker said that the Trump campaign is working toward another Electoral College victory with a popular vote loss, but warned, “The election could go either way as of today.”

“As I like to tell Republicans,” he added, “there’s no telling what can happen if Democrats nominate someone who is likable, trustworthy, and not under FBI investigation.”

In airplanes, 12-step programs and politics, the first step is admitting that you have a problem. So far, most Republicans have been unwilling to take that step. Admitting that you have a problem doesn’t mean that the flight will end in a crash. I’ve experienced engine failures, hydraulic failures, and a multitude of other problems, but I’ve always returned to earth safely. Very often it isn’t the fact that you have a problem that leads to disaster but the fact that the problem is ignored.

There is no emergency checklist for dealing with the Republican 2020 problem, but there are several options. The most obvious one is for Republicans to rein in Donald Trump. This might also include taking his phone away or convincing him to let staffers prescreen his tweets. At the other end of the spectrum is replacing Trump with another candidate for 2020. Neither of these options would be easy.

The bottom line for Republicans is that, if they want to win in 2020, it will require more than just pointing at Democrats and yelling, “Socialist!” in a manner reminiscent of Donald Sutherland in “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” Republicans have 15 months in which to build a positive case for why voters should return them to power. It is also 15 months in which Donald Trump’s tweets and public comments will be threatening to undermine their argument. Ignoring that problem won’t make it go away.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Both Sides Should Look In The Mirror When It Comes To Political Violence

With two mass shootings within 24 hours, the rhetorical battle lines are once again being drawn. On the one side, liberals are blaming guns and President Trump’s rhetoric while many on the right are trying to shift the blame away from white supremacy and presidential tweets. The truth is that there is more than one cause for the murder spree and both sides share some responsibility for the charged political environment that may have contributed to the killings.

While the motive is not obvious for the Dayton murders, an online manifesto posted to the 8Chan message board prior to the El Paso attack appears to be genuine. The manifesto rails against Hispanic immigrants who the murderer blamed for many of America’s political and economic problems. Unlike many on the right, the author of the manifesto did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.

The racist motive for the murders presents problems for conservatives, many of whom don’t want to acknowledge that people on the right are not only capable of violence but commit domestic terror attacks on a fairly regular basis. Since the news of the manifesto broke yesterday, I have seen at least one right-wing social media user speculate that Antifa was behind the El Paso attack as a way to discredit the right. Based on what I’ve seen online in the past, this sort of reaction is not that rare.

The truth is that white supremacist violence is a growing problem. Domestic terrorist attacks by leftist groups were common in the 1970s. In the 1980s and 90s, these gave way to attacks by foreign Islamic radicals. After September 11, homegrown Islamic radicals launched a wave of attacks. Now, it seems that white supremacists are the up and coming source of violence.

In June, FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “A majority of the domestic terrorism cases that we’ve investigated are motivated by some version of what you might call white supremacist violence.”

Domestic terror attacks related to white supremacy from 2018 and 2019 alone include the murder of student Blaze Bernstein in California, a shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue, an arson attack at a California mosque, and another mass shooting at a synagogue in Poway, California. If we expand to include other right-wing attacks, we can add a vehicular attack on a New Jersey Planned Parenthood clinic and pipe bomb attacks by the so-called “MAGA bomber” to the list.     

Earlier this week, an FBI bulletin released by Yahoo News detailed concern about  “conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists,” who might be inspired by such Deep State conspiracy theories such as QAnon. The Q conspiracy theory ties President Trump’s opponents to “a conspiracy involving ‘deep state’ actors and global elites allegedly engaged in an international child sex trafficking ring.” The report notes, “the uncovering of real conspiracies or cover-ups involving illegal, harmful, or unconstitutional activities by government officials or leading political figures” could further incite domestic terrorists.

It’s clear that there is a problem on the right, but the flip side is that the left is all too willing to tar all conservatives with the extremist brush. As Erick Erickson pointed out on Twitter, liberals are quick to label anyone who supports border security as a racist. For many on the left, “common sense gun controls” for many Democrats would amount to near-total bans on privately-owned guns and ammunition. For every liberal who says, “I don’t want to take your guns,” there seems to be one who openly says, “yes, I do want to take your guns.”

https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1158048421149847552?s=20

Liberals complain that conservatives won’t have a meaningful discussion or take action on the issue of gun violence, but liberals have shown themselves to be untrustworthy on the issue. The same policy prescriptions are trotted out after each attack. In many or most cases, the policies that the left advocates, such as waiting periods and high capacity magazine bans, would not have prevented the attack.

Even an outright ban on guns would have a minimal effect since there are an estimated 393 million guns in private hands in the United States. A large percentage of those guns would remain outstanding in the case of a gun ban and confiscation as law-abiding citizens suddenly became outlaws. It’s interesting to note that, despite the ratio of more than 120 guns per 100 Americans, the US violent crime rate has been falling since 1993. This has remained true even as the “assault weapons” ban expired and concealed and open carry laws were passed around the country.

A liberal orthodoxy that needs to be shattered is that gun control is equivalent to crime control. Mass shootings seem to occur almost randomly around the country. They have occurred in states with strict gun controls such as California and New York and they have occurred in permissive states such as Florida and Texas. They have even occurred in military and government facilities where personal weapons are prohibited.

Mass killings are also not limited to AR-15s and similar types of semi-automatic rifles. The murderers have used various combinations of rifles, shotguns, and pistols. In other cases, killers have also used weapons such as bombs made from pipes and pressure cookers, knives, machetes, nerve gas, swords, and even a baseball bat to commit mass murder.

One of the few types of gun control that might be effective is red flag laws. Since many murder sprees have been committed by people with long histories of mental illness, some states are passing laws that allow temporary confiscation of guns owned by people who are deemed to present a threat to themselves or others. However, the potential for abuse and the deficit of trust between gun owners and the left presents a problem here. Earlier this year, police killed a Maryland man who had committed no crime as they attempted to serve a red flag order.

Rather than guns being the problem, weapons are merely a symptom of a problem with the human heart. The violence problem is related to a number of evil thoughts and desires such as greed, racism, the desire for political power, or the belief that one is a holy warrior or an instrument of divine judgment.

It is a defect of one’s humanity to possess the desire to gun down innocent people in cold blood, but it doesn’t mean that the person is crazy. The murder plot might be a calculated desire to incite a race war, as Dylann Roof intended to do, or it might be a desire to defend one’s country against its enemies, as Cesar Sayoc’s attorneys claim. Maybe the shooter bought into a conspiracy theory like Pizzagate or QAnon or maybe they blame their own misfortunes on people who look or talk differently.  

Sometimes underlying prejudices can be ignited by claims from political leaders, which brings us back not only to Donald Trump but to opposition leaders as well. Yes, President Trump says many irresponsible things and, yes, he should tone down his rhetoric. The president has demonized immigrants as violent criminals, whipped up fear of migrant caravans prior to last year’s election, and railed against both Democrats and his own Justice Department as corrupt Deep State enemies of America. It isn’t hard to imagine that this sort of talk could inspire someone who is already on the brink of violence.

But it isn’t only Donald Trump’s rhetoric that is a problem. Claims that Trump is a stooge of Russian President Putin, that he is a fascist, that he is a white supremacist, and that he will refuse to leave the presidency after his term is up are all examples of things said by the left that could incite violence from Trump opponents. It should not be forgotten that it was only two years ago that a radicalized Bernie Sanders supporter nearly killed a handful of Republican senators as they played baseball.

The truth is that both sides are guilty of overheated rhetoric as they attempt to drive their respective bases to the polls. What often motivates voters is the fear that the other side will win and destroy the country rather than the hope that their own side can implement good ideas. Instilling fear requires a scapegoat, but when people, either individuals or an ethnic group, become the object of fear, that fear can lead to violence.

Currently, the national political climate seems to be a tinderbox around which warriors of the two parties are constantly dropping sparks and red hot coals. It’s a wonder that we haven’t experienced more political violence in recent times than we have. Both sides are more than willing to point the finger at the other when violent attacks occur, but if we really want to make America better, both sides need to look in the mirror.

Originally published on The Resurgent

The 'Trump Bump' In Political Violence

In the wake of a string of political violence that includes attempted mail bombings and what is believed to be the worst attack on Jews in US history, many are charging that President Trump is responsible for the uptick in violence. President Trump obviously never instructed his supporters to bomb or shoot his political opponents so the question is how much responsibility the president bears for the recent violence. The answer, if we are honest with ourselves, has to be “some.”

This isn’t to say that Donald Trump is legally responsible for the actions of overzealous political supporters. There is a well-established legal test to determine whether someone has incited violence. The Brandenburg test created by the Supreme Court holds that incitement requires “producing imminent lawless action.” Even hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.

What is legal is not always responsible, ethical or smart. This is especially true when the speaker is the president of the United States and wields a “bully pulpit” that addresses millions of supporters. While the president has not called for his supporters to directly confront his critics (at least not since the campaign), he has contributed to the atmosphere of anger and distrust that permeates American politics.

Over the past few months, a pattern has begun to emerge. That pattern consists of people on the right side of the political spectrum launching attacks on people and organizations that President Trump has demonized. In Pittsburgh, the murders were not only directed at the synagogue’s worshippers because they were Jews, but also because they were thought to be pro-immigration.

The murderer wrote on Gab, a social media site frequented by the alt-right, that Jewish efforts to help refugees were “sugar-coated evil.” One of the last posts made by the shooter referenced the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, HIAS, saying, “HIAS likes to bring invaders that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics. I’m going in.”

Although the killer claims that he did not vote for President Trump, who he called a “globalist,” there are similarities in the anti-immigrant postings between the two men. President Trump tweeted last June, “We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country.”

The Pittsburgh murderer used the same militant terminology for illegal immigrants. Six days before his killing spree he wrote, “I have noticed a change in people saying 'illegals' that now say 'invaders.' I like this.”

The shooter’s concern that “my people” would be “slaughtered” hearkens back to the President Trump’s claims that illegals are violent criminals and the Administration’s decision to emphasize murders committed by illegal immigrants. Despite these claims, there is no statistical evidence for a violent crime wave by illegal immigrants.

Similarly, President Trump’s rhetoric on the news media can be linked to attacks and threats in the real world. On numerous occasions, Trump has called the media “the enemy of the American People.” The idea that the media is an enemy has led to action by his supporters on at least two occasions.

The Florida mail bomber dubbed the “MAGA Bomber,” is now infamous for sending bombs to CNN and Democrats, who President Trump and other Republicans have likened to an “angry mob.” Less well known is the case of another Trump supporter who was arrested in August for threatening to kill employees of the Boston Globe. The man used the familiar phrase “enemy of the people” in his threats and accused the paper of “treasonous and seditious acts” after it asked papers around the country to share its op-ed criticizing Trump’s rhetorical attacks on the press.

It should be clear by now that words matter and when the president tells his supporters that the media is the enemy and that migrants are invaders, some of those supporters take him seriously. If enemies and invaders are trying to destroy America while you are trying to “Make America Great Again,” the logical next step for some listeners will be to destroy those enemies before they can destroy America.

President Trump doesn’t even seem to believe all of his own rhetoric. After pledging to “lock her up,” Trump declined to have the Justice Department investigate Hillary for a myriad of alleged crimes from murder to aiding the Russians in the election and selling out America’s uranium supply. Less than a month after the 2016 election, Trump said that she had suffered enough.

This isn’t to say that Donald Trump is the only offender. There are many on both sides of the political spectrum who make comments that are just as bad – or worse – as what President Trump says. The difference is that they are not the president, who is supposed to be the leader of all of the American people as well as the person responsible for upholding the rule of law. Additionally, few have a following as large as President Trump or one that inspires such quasi-religious devotion.

With great power comes great responsibility. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has not shown himself to be capable of handling that responsibility. The failed MAGA Bomber had not yet even faded from the headlines when the president tweeted this morning that “The Fake News Media” is the “true Enemy of the People.”

The man who threatened Globe employees, the MAGA Bomber, and the synagogue mass murderer made their own individual choices to kill and threaten their fellow Americans. Donald Trump didn’t tell them to do what they did, but neither is the president entirely blameless. Trump was elected president amid a fear that Democrats and immigrants are violent criminals who are destroying the country. He has made a conscious decision to continue with the heated rhetoric in order to urge the base toward the polls in yet another most-important-election-of-our-lifetime.

There is no sign that either President Trump or the Democrats have any plans to ease up on the divisive words that that are intended to pit Americans against each other. If the country longed for an uniter after the divisive Obama presidency, it is clear that Donald Trump, who brings more of the same identity politics, is not that man.

As tensions rise, there will be more bloodshed. Radicals from both the right and left will feed on the dire warnings from their respective tribes and take matters into their own hands. Politicians on both sides bear a moral, if not legal, responsibility for the violence.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Ted Cruz Says Media Ignores Santa Fe Aftermath Due To Bias

Have you heard much about the Santa Fe school shooting lately? The furor over the May 18 attack seems to have abated quickly and Texas Senator Ted Cruz says it is because the victims and their families don’t support the media’s gun control agenda.

In an interview with the Daily Signal, Cruz called the murders “horrific” and said, “There have been too dang many of these.”

“Something’s wrong,” Cruz continued. “When we were kids, this wasn’t a part of going to school. You might worry about getting a black eye at school or something, but you didn’t worry about someone, some lunatic coming in and shooting and murdering as many people as they could. That was not part of school.”

When asked what strategies could be followed to stop school shootings, Cruz said that he and Texas Gov. Abbott asked the victims and their families for opinions. “It was really striking,” Cruz said. “Out of a dozen students who just hours earlier had been in this shooting, every one of them said the answer is not gun control. They said, don’t take our guns. They said if you take our guns, it won’t make us safer, it will just mean the killers and murderers have guns.”

Cruz added that many of the students supported metal detectors and armed police guards in schools, two ideas that have been attacked by Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg. The Santa Fe shooting survivors also supported another idea lambasted by Hogg, arming teachers.

The senator told of a student who “said his teacher was a former Marine, who was trained to handle a firearm.” According to Cruz, the student “said he wished his teacher had been armed; he might have been able to stop the killer before he killed so many people.”

Cruz drew a contrast between the Parkland survivors and the Santa Fe students, saying, “It’s fairly striking that, you look at the mainstream media, CNN, after the Parkland shooting, it was round-the-clock coverage of the students calling for aggressive gun control because that happens to be the political agenda of most of the media. In this case, where the students aren’t calling for that, suddenly … the media isn’t interested in covering it.”

Media bias almost certainly plays a role in the lack of continuing coverage of the Santa Fe teens. After Parkland, media outlets made rock stars of Parkland survivors such as David Hogg, Cameron Kasky and Emma Gonzalez while all but ignoring pro-Second Amendment survivor Kyle Kashuv.

Nevertheless, there may be additional reasons that the story was downplayed as well. The Santa Fe shooting had fewer victims than the Parkland shooting as well as the fact that the Parkland shooting had the shock value of being the first in a series. The news was also overshadowed by President Trump’s claims that the FBI spied on his campaign as well as events in Korea.

Cruz is absolutely correct that the Texans from Santa Fe reacted differently from the Parkland victims, however. The Texas Tribune detailed a meeting between Santa Fe students and teachers with Gov. Abbott. Most agreed that more school counselors, armed teachers and school police officers were needed. There was also support for random checks of student bags.

The idea of metal detectors seemed to draw more resistance than arming teachers. Sophomore Tyler Morrison questioned whether the policy would be “treating kids like prisoners” while senior Grace Johnson asked, “Do we push back our education because we need to get 1,500 kids through a metal detector?”

What was absent from the list was support for gun control. In fact, a full-page ad placed by gun control group Everytown in the Houston Chronicle last week was signed by 40 students from around Texas. Although a number of the signatories were from the Houston area, there were apparently none from Santa Fe.

The Texan response can perhaps be summed up best by Jay Horn, the parent of a student hospitalized as a result of the shooting. “This is not a gun thing,” said Horn. “Evil's going to happen with anything.” The comment got a round of applause. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

YouTube Shooting Doesn't Fit the Gun Control Narrative

Yesterday's shooting at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, Calif. is markedly different from other recent killing sprees in several important ways. The shooting also pokes holes in proposed gun control schemes.

The accused shooter, who is not being named by The Resurgent, did not fit the normal mold of spree shooters, who are predominantly either Anglo-American white males or males of Muslim heritage. The YouTube shooter was a woman, which is rare is spree shooting cases. The 39-year-old woman was apparently of Persian (Iranian) heritage, but so far there is no evidence that the attack was religious-based terrorism. Law enforcement sources told the AP that the shooting is being investigated as a “domestic dispute” even though there is no evidence so far that the woman knew the victims or specifically targeted them.

The woman was an active creator of videos on YouTube and other social media platforms. The Telegraph reports that her family said she was angry about YouTube allegedly filtering and de-monetizing her videos.

“She was always complaining that YouTube ruined her life,” her brother said.

The woman's father told Fox News that she had disappeared two days earlier and had stopped answering her phone. Police reportedly found her sleeping in her car around 2:00 a.m. on the morning of the shooting in the city of Mountain View near San Francisco.

“I googled ‘Mountain View’ and it was close to YouTube headquarters. And she had a problem with YouTube,” her brother said. “So I called the cop again and told him there’s a reason she went all the way from San Diego to there, so she might do something. So they didn’t do anything, and she got killed... and three or four more people got hurt.”

Although the motive was apparently not political, the woman seems to have been an animal rights activist. She was quoted in a 2009 article in the San Diego Union-Tribune about a PETA protest against the use of pigs in military trauma training per The Telegraph. Her YouTube videos, now removed, discussed animal rights, vegan issues, Persian culture and fitness. It was her workout videos that led to the problem with YouTube after the site placed an age restriction on one video that it deemed too racy.

So far there is no indication of any gun ownership by either the woman or her family prior to the attack. California's gun laws are among the strictest in the nation and include a 10-day waiting period for firearms purchases as well as an “assault weapons” ban. The precise type of weapon used by the woman is not known, but multiple outlets report that it was a handgun, not one of the AR-15-style rifles that have been demonized by anti-gun activists since the February shooting spree in Parkland, Fl. Where the woman acquired the gun is not known.

There is also no indication at this point that the woman exhibited prior signs of mental illness or violence. In many cases, spree killers display warning signs to family and friends or have prior records of civil disturbances before they go on a killing spree. Her family said she “hated” YouTube, but have not indicated that there were warning signs that she planned to attack the company prior to her disappearance.

The YouTube shooting is tragic, but underscores the difficulties in preventing active shooter incidents. The gun is unlikely to have been affected by the gun ban bills most likely to become law and there seems to have been no obvious reason to prevent a gun purchase by the woman. If the gun was obtained legally from a gun shop, she circumvented California's strict laws and planned the attack far enough in advance to take the waiting period into account.

The shooting is another case in which defenseless citizens were at the mercy of an active shooter because of state and local laws that make it difficult for people to own and carry guns legally. The shooting spree ultimately ended as an “officer carrying an assault rifle” arrived and the shooter killed herself, per the eyewitness account of software engineer Zach Vorhies in the AP.

As with many spree shootings, the bad guy was stopped by good guys carrying guns.

  Originally published on The Resurgent

Broward Deputies Prevented Paramedics From Entering School

The Broward County Sheriff’s Department has taken a massive amount of criticism for its actions both before and during the massacre at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fl. and the hits just keep on coming. New information suggests that Broward County deputies may have actively stopped paramedics from entering the school in the minutes after the shooting.

Fox News cites three Florida law enforcement sources who say that EMS teams requested permission to enter the school. The Broward County Sheriff’s office, which had control of the crime scene, denied permission to the first responders.

“What’s going to come out is, in the communications on several circumstances, there was the request to enter... the request was denied from Broward County,” an unnamed Florida official said.

“When you have a police agency saying we don’t want you going in, that’s a problem,” another Florida official said. “The training since Columbine has been [that] first responders, police go in immediately with paramedics.”

Broward County responded to Fox’s queries with an email that said the entire incident was under investigation and “investigators will not be rushed or asked to jump to conclusions.”

Fox also cites “high-ranking sources” who say they police officers and deputies brought victims out to be treated by EMS workers rather than EMS workers attending to them inside the school. Standard procedure for treating the injured includes not moving seriously injured victims. EMS workers are trained to follow the initial wave of police. In the Parkland shooting, deputies are reported to have waited outside rather than entering the school to engage the shooter.

“If they’re not going in then we’re not going in. We’re trained to go in with them,” a fire official said.

Brian Entin, a reporter for the Miami Fox News affiliate, reported that a first responder claims, “everything I was trained on mass casualty events says they did the wrong thing.” The responder said that one shooting victim did not get out to an ambulance for 45 minutes.

The delay in admitting EMS to the scene was reportedly due to law enforcement’s uncertainty about the status of the shooter. Police were uncertain whether the shooter was dead, had left the scene or was still present.

“I would hypothesize that I could have saved lives,” the first responder said. “I can’t say for sure.”

Mike Moser, the Division Chief of Fire Administration for Coral Springs-Parkland Fire Department, said, “Decisions cannot be made in a vacuum. All of the variables must be taken into consideration before a rescue task force can be enabled.”

“It is possible that those that are upset about not being allowed inside, simply do not have all of the information that our law-enforcement partners had in making their decision,” he added.

The anonymous first responder disagrees. “I would have risked my life to go in,” he says. “I was eager to. I was frustrated the entire time I was there.”

More details about the Broward County Sheriff Department’s response to the shooting are likely to emerge as the investigation continues.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Four Deputies Waited Outside During Parkland Massacre

A new report indicates that as many as four Broward County deputies may have arrived at the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School last week while the shooting was still taking place. The report from CNN indicates that the officers arrived on the scene but did not enter the school to confront the active shooter.

Per the report, when officers of the Coral Springs Police Department arrived on the scene, they found four deputies with guns drawn standing behind their cars. None had reportedly entered the school. The report states that the deputies directed the Coral Springs officers toward the school, but apparently did not accompany them when they entered.

The actions of the deputies reportedly has caused friction between the two departments with some Coral Springs officers considering the failure to enter the school immediately “dereliction of duty.” It is not known whether the killer was still in the school while the deputies waited outside, but it is possible that a quicker entry might have saved the lives of some students who had been shot.

The school resource officer assigned to the school resigned earlier this week after it was revealed that he had waited outside the school for four minutes after the shooting started. Scot Petersen was originally suspended without pay and then decided to resign.

In the midst of the heated debate over gun control that erupted after the shooting, the inaction of the deputies underscores the need of citizens to be able to protect their own lives. For anti-gun activists who would like to make guns more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain, the fact that armed police waited outside rather than intervene in the massacre raises difficult questions about whether citizens can depend on police to charge in and take down an active shooter.

The delayed entry by the Broward County deputies is not unique and may be more common than many realize. For instance, at Columbine officers were on the scene within five minutes according to CBS News. The officer assigned to the school exchanged gunfire with one of the shooters, who retreated into the school. Six officers then waited outside while the killers stalked the school. It took almost two hours for a SWAT team to storm the school. By then, both shooters and 13 innocent people were dead.

The motto of the police is “to protect and serve,” but if officers believe that they are outnumbered and outgunned, they won’t necessarily charge into an unknown threat. There is no legal duty for them to do so. In fact, Supreme Court precedent holds that government police protection is a “benefit,” not an “entitlement.”

The fundamental lesson to learn is that police will protect citizens if it is feasible for them to do so. If officers fear for their own safety, protecting innocent civilians may well become a secondary consideration to protecting themselves and containing the shooter.

Keeping that in mind, law-abiding citizens should seriously consider how to protect themselves until the police arrive and form into a force that is deemed safe to go after the criminals. For many, that may mean getting a gun of their own and a permit to carry it. Even at school.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Who Was Las Vegas Shooter, Stephen Paddock?

Police have identified Stephen Paddock as the mass murderer in last night’s Las Vegas shooting. Paddock was found dead in a room on the 32^nd floor of the Mandalay Bay casino on the Las Vegas strip after the shooting. Paddock’s death was an apparent suicide.

Who was Stephen Craig Paddock and why would he want to senselessly slaughter scores of people who were peacefully attending a concert?

Paddock, 64, was a resident of Mesquite, Nev. Mesquite is a small town about 80 miles to the northeast of Las Vegas on Interstate 15. Multiple sources report that police there had never had any problems with Mr. Paddock, but NBC has reported that he was “known” to authorities. The Las Vegas Review Journal reported that Mr. Paddock bought a 2,018 square foot home in Mesquite in 2015 for $369,000 and lived there with his girlfriend, Marilou Danley.

Danley was originally considered a person of interest in the attack, but seems to have been cleared of involvement at this point. NBC News reports that Paddock may have used her identification, but that she was out of the country at the time of the shooting. Police have reportedly already spoken with Danley. The Daily Wire, citing Facebook posts, claims that Danley may be married to a man named Geary Danley.

The Telegraph reports that Paddock had previous addresses in Reno and Henderson, Nev. as well as Melbourne, Fl. and several locations in California. NBC reports that the family grew up in Sun Valley, Calif.

Another brother, Bruce Paddock, told NBC that Stephen had earned a living as the owner and manager of apartment buildings. He was not a military veteran per The Telegraph.

Contrary to some reports, Mr. Paddock apparently did not have an active Facebook page. Heavy.com notes that the photo of Mr. Paddock holding a shot glass was actually taken from Marilou Danley’s Facebook page.

Paddock’s brother, Eric Paddock, 55, of Orlando, said that the murderer was “just a guy” without any serious health or money problems. Eric Paddock said that Stephen lived a quiet retirement life and would often go to Las Vegas to play poker and slot machines.

Stephen Paddock is also reported to have had a pilot license. NBC reports that the last time that he was known to have flown a plane was in 2010 and that he had owned two airplanes.

Authorities report that 10 guns were found in the hotel room with Mr. Paddock’s body and that guns and ammunition were also found in a search of his home. So far, there has been no indication that any of the guns were illegal. Paddock is known to have been a hunter with an Alaska hunting license.

The Associated Press reported that Islamic State claimed that Paddock converted to Islam several months ago. The AP notes that ISIS did not provide evidence of the conversion and authorities say that there is no known connection between Paddock and international Islamic terrorist groups. His brother said that Paddock had “no affiliation to anything.”

Thus far no motive has been established in the killing spree. Most recent mass shootings have been perpetrated by either Islamic terrorists or people with untreated mental illness. As of this writing, there is no indication that Stephen Paddock fits into either of those categories.

“As they drill into his life, there will be nothing to be found,” Eric Paddock said of his brother.

Originally published on The Resurgent

How Mentally Ill Esteban Santiago Flew His Gun Across the Country… Legally

After Esteban Santiago murdered five people in the Fort Lauderdale airport last week, the obvious question to emerge is how Santiago managed to get a gun through airport security. The question of Santiago’s weapon is two-fold since there are reports that he had shown signs of mental illness as well as the fact that the shooting occurred in an airport, normally considered to be a gun-free zone.

Santiago, an Iraq War veteran who served with the Puerto Rico National Guard, reportedly visited the FBI office in Anchorage, Alaska and complained, according to an FBI spokesman, “that his mind was being controlled by US intelligence agencies. During the interview, Mr. Santiago appeared agitated, incoherent and made disjointed statements. Although, he stated he did not wish to harm anyone, as a result of his erratic behavior, our [FBI] agents contacted local authorities who took custody of Mr. Santiago and transported him a local medical facility for evaluation.”

The spokesman said that Mr. Santiago, who had lived in Alaska for several years and worked there as a security guard and a member of the Alaska National Guard, was not placed on a no-fly list. “During our initial investigation, we found no ties to terrorism. There is currently no indication that Mr. Santiago was working with other individuals when he planned and carried out yesterday’s attack.”

With respect to Santiago’s mental health, a spokesman noted, “There is a federal law with regard to having a gun by somebody who is mentally ill, but the law requires that the person be ‘adjudicated mentally ill,’ which is a difficult standard. This is not someone who would have been prohibited [from owning or possessing a gun] based on the laws that they had. I think that law enforcement acted within the laws that they had. We’re a country of laws and they operated within them.”

There are laws that prevent the mentally ill from possessing guns, but the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and due process must be followed to restrict that right. Federal and Alaska law state that firearms ownership and possession are prohibited if a person has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.” Neither seems to have applied to Santiago, whose gun was returned after a mental health screening in connection with his statements at the FBI office according to the Anchorage Daily News.

“Unless there was some sort of a court order requiring involuntary commitment for mental health treatment, under existing gun control legislation, he could not be deprived of his constitutional right to possess a weapon,” Paul Callan, former New York homicide prosecutor told CNN. “People who submit to voluntary mental health treatment don't lose their right to possess firearms under current US law.”

Health care workers are required to notify authorities if they believe a patient may pose a danger to themselves or others. Privacy laws may conflict with this duty to warn, however. With many mass shootings in recent years, the perpetrators have exhibited signs of mental illness before their shooting sprees. Until a law is broken, such as making a threat, people who are mentally ill and potentially dangerous must voluntarily seek treatment.

Since Santiago was not committed or judged to be mentally ill, he had broken no laws and was free to travel. Esteban placed his weapon in a checked bag for his flight to Florida. NBC News reports that the Glock 9mm pistol was in a gun case that was carried in the baggage compartment of the airliners that flew Esteban from Anchorage to Minneapolis and Fort Lauderdale.

According to TSA rules, guns and ammunition are allowed on airliners if they are placed in a checked bag that is hard-sided and kept locked. Passengers cannot carry guns, ammunition or parts of guns such as magazines or clips in the cabin of the airliner. Ammunition can be placed in the same locked container as the gun.

Esteban would have checked his gun case and declared his firearm when he checked in at the airport. He would then have gone through the TSA security screening and traveled unarmed. Baggage claim areas are outside of the secure area of the airport.

Esteban reported left the secure area of the airport and retrieved his gun case at baggage claim upon arrival in Fort Lauderdale. At that point, he took the gun and ammunition out of the case and killed five people.

At this point, it seems that gun laws were followed in the case of Esteban Santiago. The gun was legal, Santiago owned and possessed it legally and he legally transported it across the country.

The failure in Fort Lauderdale seems to the same failure that contributed to so many shootings in the past few years. Law enforcement and the mental health system failed to identify a troubled individual who was in need of treatment. Perhaps instead of calling for more gun control, we should revisit privacy laws that prevent doctors, employers and law enforcement agencies from sharing information about potential killers. Consideration should also be given to reforming commitment laws so that potentially dangerous people can be given treatment without their consent.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is not a gun control issue. It is a public safety issue. If mass shootings continue unabated, the left’s outcry for more gun control may lead to sweeping laws like those of New York that restrict all gun ownership, rather than sensible laws that target the real problem.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Governors arm National Guard after Chattanooga murders

This week’s attack by an alleged Islamic extremist on a military recruiting office in Chattanooga was not the first such attack on soldier on American soil. In spite of a string of attacks on military bases and recruiting offices in the past several years, the Obama Administration several has not taken steps to allow military personnel to carry weapons for self-defense. Today a growing number of state governors are taking action to protect their state National Guardsmen from similar attacks.

According to CNN, there have been at least three successful attacks on military targets in the United States in recent years. In 2009, Carlos Bledsoe killed one soldier and wounded another outside an army recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark. Bledsoe was a convert to Islam who had been arrested in Yemen the year before in possession of a fake ID card, bomb making manuals and a phone that contained contacts with Islamic militants.

Also in 2009, Nidal Hasan, an army major and Muslim who opposed the war in Afghanistan, killed 13 soldiers and wounded 32 at Fort Hood, Tex.

In 2013, Aaron Alexis, a civilian contractor and former navy sailor, killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard. Alexis had a history of mental health problems.

In at least two other cases, plots to attack US military bases were disrupted by authorities. In 2008, five Muslim immigrants were found guilty of plotting to attack Fort Dix, N.J. "to kill as many American soldiers as possible" according to the Washington Post. Earlier this year, an Illinois National Guardsman and his cousin were accused of plotting to join ISIS and attack a National Guard base in Joliet, Ill. reported the Chicago Sun Times.

In spite of this pattern of attacks, military leaders and the Obama Administration still prohibit the carrying of firearms on military bases, a policy that dates back to March 1993. While the perimeter of many military bases can be easily secured, military recruiting offices cannot. As Maj. Hasan and Alexis demonstrated, a person with access to the interior of a military base can do serious damage before defenders can respond.

Army chief of staff Gen. Ray Odierno told Fox News yesterday that he would conduct a review of security procedures at recruiting offices, but thought that allowing recruiters to be armed might "cause more problems than it solves."

In a tweet, ABC News correspondent Luis Martinez said that “Marine Corps Recruiting Command has instructed Marine recruiters not to wear uniforms at work, part of force protection since Chattanooga.” This was unverified by other sources.

Some states are taking a stronger tack. The governors of Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas have issued orders to their state National Guard troops to take action to prevent a Chattanooga-style terrorist attack.

At least six state governors have announced plans to allow National Guard troops to carry weapons. Houston’s ABC 13 said today that Greg Abbott (R-Tex.) will arm Texas National Guard soldiers at their bases to “not only serve as a deterrent to anyone wishing to do harm to our service men and women, but will enable them to protect those living and working on the base.”

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) issued an Executive Order yesterday directing the state’s Adjutant General to arm “selected Guard personnel… to preserve the lives, property, and security” of Louisiana Guardsmen. Jindal is a Republican presidential candidate.

In Florida, Rick Scott (R) issued an Executive Order temporarily moving National Guard recruiting offices from commercial stores to armories until state officials can assess and enhance the security of the stores according to the Florida Times-Union. Scott’s order also armed the state’s Guardsmen.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) also ordered full-time Guardsmen to be armed as deemed necessary by the Arkansas National Guard’s commanding officer according to a press release.

The Hill reports that Mary Fallin (R-Okla.) also issued an order allowing full-time Guardsmen in Oklahoma to be armed.

This afternoon, Mike Pence (R-Ind.) became the most recent governor to issue such an order according to Fox 59.

Individual governors can arm their state’s National Guard because the Guard is under state control in normal circumstances with the governor as the commander-in-chief. The National Guard can also be federalized by the president for use with the regular army in combat operations or disasters.

As the death toll from attacks on military installations mounts, it seems likely that more governors will take steps to protect their state soldiers from attack. As Greg Abbott said, “After the recent shooting in Chattanooga, it has become clear that our military personnel must have the ability to defend themselves against these type of attacks on our own soil.”

 Read the full article on Examiner.com

Santa Barbara murderer had much in common with other spree killers

By now, most are familiar with the story of Elliot Rodger, the Santa Barbara mass murderer who killed six people last weekend before turning his gun on himself. Rodger’s loneliness, angst and longing for meaningless sex are now well known. What may be less well known is that Rodger shared many characteristics with a number of other recent spree killers.

As Examiner reported last year, a number of features are common in the random mass killings that seem prevalent in recent years. First, almost all of the mass killers are known to be habitual players of violent video games. Second, the killer often comes from a broken family. Finally, in most cases, the killer can be reasonably determined to have undiagnosed or untreated mental illness. Elliot Rodger fits into all three categories.

Rodger’s own writings, excerpted here in the Daily Mail, say that he was “immersed entirely” in “online games like World of Warcraft.” Other reports, including this one from World Net Daily, suggest that Rodger used phrases from the game in his manifesto.

Frequent use of video games alone does not explain Rodger’s actions. Millions of people around the world play video games, even the most violent games, without descending into madness. There is the possibility, however, that violent video games can trigger violent behavior in some people. Lt. Col. (ret.) Dave Grossman, a former West Point psychology professor, has long studied the phenomenon in a field that he calls “killology.”

Two other factors that may act as triggers are broken families and mental illness. CNN reports that Rodger’s parents had divorced in 1999 when he was seven years old. While the specifics of Rodger’s family life are not known, it is well established that children, particularly boys, do not fare well in single parent families for reasons that vary from economic insecurity to inadequate supervision and time with their parents.

Mental illness was also a factor in Rodger’s actions. According to Hollywood Life, his mother said that he had Asperger’s syndrome, the same form of autism that Sandy Hook murderer Adam Lanza was known to have. A friend of the family told Radar Online that Elliot had “heard voices” and suffered from “extreme paranoia.” The source also said that Rodger had been prescribed a psychiatric medication, but refused to take it. Before moving to Santa Barbara, Rodger had been under the care of a psychologist.

There were warning signs. Rodger had posted violent threats on the internet before. About a month before the killing spree, the videos prompted his mother to send the police to his apartment. According to the Washington Post, the murders were not his first brush with violence. He had splashed hot coffee on girls who didn’t smile at him, shot people in a park with a Super Soaker filled with orange juice, and, shortly before his last birthday, tried to push girls off a 10 foot high ledge at a party.

Culture, like video games, cannot bear the brunt of the blame, but also likely played a role. Cultural icons have spent decades giving children and teenagers the message through movies and television that sex can – and perhaps should - be free of love and commitment. The normalization of pornography and the hookup culture, while seen as empowering to women by some feminists, does much to dehumanize and objectify women. This may be especially true to boys from broken homes who lack positive male role models to show them how women should be treated.

Rodger’s ramblings show that his sense of entitlement was complementary to his view of women as nothing more than sexual playthings. He believed that his family status and connections entitled him to sex with beautiful girls and he resented the boys that were chosen over him. He viewed wealth as a means to attract girls and blamed his parents for not providing him with the money he needed for a lavish lifestyle. He felt that his mother should have remarried to a wealthy man and was angry that his father’s failed documentary, “Oh My God,” had caused the family financial hardship.

The easiest solutions to the problems that created Elliot Rodger and the other spree murders deal with reforming how we treat mental illness. After the Sandy Hook massacre, psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey described the federal mental health failure in the Wall St. Journal. Speaking on the May 28 episode of Michael Medved’s radio show, Torrey listed several reforms that would make future spree killings by the mentally ill less likely. First, he cited the need to reform commitment laws for those who are mentally ill and refuse voluntary treatment. Second, HIPAA privacy laws need to be reformed to make it easier for doctors and government officials to communicate about potentially threatening patients. Third, more beds are needed in mental health facilities to treat patients. Finally, mental health experts should perform evaluations. Currently, police who are not trained in mental health make field determinations about whether someone is potentially dangerous.

As the list of mass murders by the untreated mentally ill grows, it should be possible to get a bipartisan agreement on mental health reform. In a time of close scrutiny of federal spending, most Americans would probably agree that preventing the violently ill from arming themselves and committing mass murder would be money well spent.

 

Read the full story on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Atlanta school shooter had record of mental illness, criminal record

The 20-year-old man who walked into a Decatur elementary school yesterday had a history of mental illness and a criminal record according to his brother. Michael Brandon Hill was arrested after he fired several shots at police and briefly held several employees hostage at the Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Center.

Timothy Hill, brother of the alleged shooter, told WSB TV (view parts one and two of the interview) that Michael Hill had a long history of mental illness. According to his brother, Hill was placed on Adderall, a drug commonly used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), at the age of six. He had a history of behavioral problems in school starting at age 13.

Timothy Hill said that he was estranged from his brother, who had threatened to kill him in December 2012. The brothers had not been in contact since a court placed a restraining order on Michael Hill. Hill was charged with making terroristic threats in connection with the incident. The mug shot of Michael Hill was from March 2013 in connection with the death threat.

Hill said that his brother had also had several run-ins with Henry Co. police for a series of burglaries. In one case when Michael Hill was 16, Timothy said that he set fire to a house with eight people sleeping inside. According to Timothy Hill, Michael was never charged with any of these crimes by Henry Co. authorities.

Hill’s brother said that Michael Hill had a “long history of medical disorders including bipolar,” but that he was never given help. At one point, Michael Hill was on so many medications that it was “like a drugstore.”

Mental illness has been a common thread in many recent spree shootings. As Examiner reported last January, Adam Lanza, the Newtown school shooter had been diagnosed with autism and Asperger’s syndrome. James Holmes, Colorado’s “Dark Knight” killer had seen three mental health professionals and reportedly mailed a package to his psychiatrist before his shooting spree in a Denver theater. Jared Lee Loughner, who shot Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, also had a long history of mental illness, marijuana use, stalking, and had been involuntarily committed. Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech killer, had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression. Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were posthumously diagnosed with a variety of mental illnesses ranging from psychopathic tendencies to depression, paranoia and delusions.

After the Sandy Hook massacre, Dr. Harold Koplewicz wrote in the Huffington Post that 75 percent of psychiatric disorders appear by age 24 and that early intervention greatly improves the prognosis. Dr. Bill Knaus of the Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy network points out that many mentally ill people are not aware of their illness and therefore will not voluntarily seek help. A particularly dangerous time seems to be when people stop taking their medication, especially if they do so abruptly and without supervision.

In spite of the fact that most shooting sprees occur in states with strict gun control laws, the legislative response after the Newtown murders primarily involved attempts to ban so-called “assault weapons.” President Obama issued series of Executive Orders aimed at increasing gun control and asked Congress to pass a new “assault weapons” ban. New York passed a strict new gun control law in January 2013. Illinois expanded background check requirements to include transactions between private citizens on August 18.

It is not currently known how Michael Brandon Hill obtained the guns that he used in his attack on the school. WSB reported that Hill was armed with “multiple guns, including an AK-47.”

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner