Odessa Police Chief Michael Gerke
Odessa Police Chief Michael Gerke announces that he does not want to speak the name of the shooter from Saturday's shooting during a news conference, Sunday, Sept. 1, 2019, in Odessa, Texas. Instead, the department released the name of the gunman through a Facebook post. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)
Previous Post
Next Post

While the names of perpetrators and victims of crimes are public information, more police departments and law enforcement agencies are actively avoiding using the names of those who perptrate spree shootings.

The name of the Odessa shooter is now widely available all across the intertubes. The New York Times reports that he was fired from his job just a few hours before opening fire on a police car, then going on a miles-long shooting rampage between Odessa and Midland that killed seven and wounded twenty-two.

Although officials said in interviews that the gunman had been fired from his job with a trucking company on Saturday morning, the authorities stressed that they had not yet established a clear motive to explain the level of violence and firepower.

“There are no definite answers as to motive or reasons at this point,” Chief Gerke said, “but we are fairly certain that the subject did act alone.”

Here’s the AP’s report on the effort to give these people as little notoriety as possible:

By Lisa Marie Pane

When law enforcement authorities gathered to discuss details of a mass shooting in West Texas that left seven people dead, there was one bit of information they refused to provide on live television: the name of the gunman.

Instead, they decided to release the name through a Facebook post. Odessa Police Chief Michael Gerke made it plain why he wouldn’t mention the name at the news conference: “I’m not going to give him any notoriety for what he did.”

Even with such restraint, it remained a challenge to curb the spread of the gunman’s name. The Odessa Police Department has fewer than 25,000 followers of its Facebook page, but the social media platform easily reaches millions of Facebook’s members around the globe and the post was shared hundreds of times. Within minutes, Twitter lit up with posts mentioning his name. Journalists and advocates on both sides of the gun debate also began spreading the word, spewing a firehose of information about the suspect.

In this era of a saturation of social media and around-the-clock news, it’s next to impossible to keep a lid on such information.

“Ultimately, the police department can only directly control what they do, and that name, that information can be reposted and retweeted and republished hundreds of thousands of time,” said Adam Lankford, a criminologist at the University of Alabama who has studied the influence of media coverage on future shooters. He and others appeal to the media to limit the volume of information about these perpetrators, saying it does little to understand the reasons for the violence or stop it in the future.

The “No Notoriety” movement first started to take hold after the 1999 Columbine school shooting outside Denver. The gunmen became household names and even in death appeared to motivate a whole new crop of mass shooters.

In recent years, it has gained momentum amid a seemingly steady stream of mass shootings. The idea is to urge news organizations to refrain from naming the shooters in mass slayings and to curb the volume of biographical information about them. In New Zealand, after a mass shooter there killed 51 people at two mosques, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern refused to mention the perpetrator’s name at all.

FBI leaders, leery of inspiring copycat killers and hesitant to give them what they see as undue attention, have occasionally been reluctant in recent years to refer to them by name.

Former FBI Director James Comey expressed that concern in a briefing with reporters the day after a 2016 rampage at an Orlando nightclub, repeatedly referring to the gunman not by his name but simply as “the killer.”

“You will notice that I am not using the killer’s name, and I will try not to do that,” Comey said. “Part of what motivates sick people to do this kind of thing is some twisted notion of fame or glory, and I don’t want to be part of that for the sake of the victims and their families.”

FBI special agent Christopher Combs, who previously worked at FBI headquarters leading the bureau’s efforts to respond to mass shootings, has held to that view. As the top FBI official in San Antonio, he has overseen the bureau’s response to multiple mass shootings in Texas, including a 2017 massacre at a church in Sutherland Springs that killed more than two dozen people.

At a news conference after the shooting where officials refrained from naming the gunman, Combs said, “We don’t talk about the shooter.”

And in a television interview after the shooting, Combs said he understood that the media had to name a shooter “once,” but “after that, we certainly don’t want to draw any type of positive attention to the shooter. And we have found through studies that there are people out there that are troubled, and when they see that, they believe this is how I can show the wrongdoings that have been done to me.”

All these years later, the Columbine attack continues to motivate mass shooters, including two men who this year stormed their former school in Brazil, killing seven people. The gunman in New Zealand was said to have been inspired by the man who in 2015 killed nine black worshippers at a church in Charleston, South Carolina.

The University of Alabama’s Lankford urges journalists to refrain from using shooters’ names or go into exhaustive detail about their crimes. These attackers are trying to outdo previous shooters with higher death tolls, he said, and media coverage serves only to encourage copycats. Experts call it the “contagion” effect.

Lankford lauded the approach in Texas to avoid mentioning the name on live television. That medium is especially problematic, he said.

“There’s the issue of B-roll where the sound bite can be played over and over and over again,” he said. “They’re trying to set a moral position and a lead they hope the media will follow.”

Tom Manger, senior associate director of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, said there are a number of challenges. The name of the shooter is considered public information that must be disseminated, and there’s a general thirst for information about mass shooters. As Americans consider ways to prevent future shootings, knowing more about the gunman might help figure out effective solutions.

But there are practical issues at play, too: How can the information be contained?

“It goes out in a hundred different ways,” Manger said. “Once it goes out on social media, it goes everywhere.”

For Caren Teves, the issue is personal. Her son, Alex, was among those killed in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater in 2012. She and her husband, Tom, created the No Notoriety movement, encouraging media to stick to reporting relevant facts rather than the smallest of biographical details.

“It is a tough thing to navigate. But it’s a start,” Teves said. “We’ve never said it’s the only solution. It’s just one of them.”

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. That’s good.. because we will never find out the real truth about mass shootings anyway.. so who needs the name of the shooter..

    • not IDing the shooter will backfire because then the backstory and relationships will never see the light. Like the recent one where a neighbor complained, etc. Plus the name will get out and then there will be those who hate upon the living because they mention the “secret” name. Just live with it until there is an actual correlation between naming the shooter and more shootings.

      • Waiting 6 months to release their name would help in stopping the other copycats that always seem to follow. All the info would be released, in time, plus you would have enough time to actual detail the story with correct information

      • There is an actual correlation. Do the research via Secret Service and FBI if you want to learn about it. And no, I’m not furnishing links, I’m not your teacher. Look it up if you are interested.

  2. Not naming the shooter to avoid giving them their personal 15 minutes of fame is good but it frustrates everyone that needs to defend against the “white supremacist” claim.

    These shooters are either mentally ill, common criminals, or just plain evil.

    Both the Left and the Right need to stop looking for these kook’s political motivations because, in most, instances, they aren’t politically consistent with either side.

    • I didn’t see any concrete info yet of him being a racist or a supremacist. I only heard he threatened a Mexican immigrant lady with his AR-15. She called the police but the police didn’t do anything about it because they claim the address wasn’t on their GPS. Eventually he goes on a shooting spree with that AR-15. Now people are acting as if no one knew he was a danger to the public and he randomly snapped because he is crazy. Although he was fired that day and killed mostly Mexican-American people (from what I seen). He even hunted down a Mexican-American woman sitting in her USPS mail van.

      That’s the only clue that might indicate this guy was a racist enraged that Mexicans were taking his jobs. Unfortunately, the police didn’t tell us his name until his social media was scrubbed from the internet and the FBI took over the investigation.

      We now know the FBI covers up the motivations of these people and only talks about the motive with the government. The white supremacist mass murderers know this, which is why they release so called manifestos.

      • I wasn’t speaking to the Odessa-Midland shooter specifically, just white shooters in general. To the Left and MSM, any white shooter is automatically a “white supremacist”.

        Not having access to any detailed information on the shooter prevents us from having the “ammunition” to fight back against labelling every white firearm owner as a white supremacist.

        If you read the El Paso shooter’s manifesto, he could be called an eco-teriorist, among other things. He colud be claimed by the Left or Right but was not a white supremacist.

        • So the shooters manifesto about opposing the Hispanic invasion of America does not make him qualified as a white supremacist?

          Do you think he is opposing the brown Hispanic people’s invasion because he doesn’t like tacos?


  3. I wonder if the DPS interrupted the killer enroute to committing an attack? Evidently the S-bag was mentally ready to begin his crime spree.

    • Exactly, this was my thought too. Now we hear he had been fired earlier in the day, have to wonder if he was between his home and his former employer’s office, on his way to take revenge when the traffic stop happened.

    • Remember the police stopped the Google mass shooter woman hours before when she was resting in her car?

      That guy probably didn’t care about anything, including using his turn signals in front of a cop. He knew what was going to happen to him and he wanted that, but before it happened he wanted to murder some people first.

    • I don’t think the traffic stop was as random as people think. DPS may have been tipped to check him out and the old taillight excuse was put in play.

  4. “…unfortunately a lot of people with firearms, on these scenes, are doing nothing..”


    Let’s see what we have here – A concealed carrier up against a murderer with a rifle?

    Unlike you (apparently), I don’t carry to play hero cop…

    • You don’t carry to be a hero. No one wants you to be a cop. Ironically, you think like the average officer when you say your safety is all that matters.

      I think it’s a man’s duty to jump into that river to save a drowning person if they are the only ones there that can swim. So to speak. It sucks, but that is the definition of a hero. I don’t want to do it, I have to do it.

      When I was a little kid I saw a toddler drowning in a pool. I didn’t run to the adults to save him. I immediately jumped in and saved him before the adults realized what was happening. I helped because I knew I could. Then I told the adults not to get distracted because he almost drowned. (As we know, little kids that are drowning can’t scream, so adults need to watch the water at all times.)

      It appears generation X and generation Baby Boomer don’t want to help their fellow humans in their greatest time of need. They only worry about themselves. They will show up to the vigil though. I guess that’s how we were gifted the social media generations that will record people injured and/or dying for likes and views on the internet.

      Mind your business. Film it so you can get paid by the media for your video/pictures. World Star!

      • Chief Censor,

        I believe that we all have a moral obligation, whenever remotely practical, to help our fellow humans who find themselves in a catastrophe.

        I will temper that sentiment with two caveats:

        (1) When a person experiences a catastrophe, the more that their foolishness put them in that position, the less obligation we have to put our well-being at risk to help him/her.

        (2) The point of helping catastrophe victims is to minimize loss of life and property. Therefore, a Good Samaritan should refrain from assisting a catastrophe victim if aiding the victim places a substantial risk of even greater loss of life and property than if the Good Samaritan did not act.

        I hope that (1) is self-explanatory. If someone pours gasoline on themselves and then starts playing with matches, I have no obligation to suffer major burns to my body in the process of trying to save the “victim”.

        And I hope that (2) makes sense. If someone falls through ice into a pond and I am almost certain to fall through the ice and drown as well if I go out onto the ice to assist, I should NOT go out onto the ice to assist. If I can assist in a safe fashion, I should do so of course. After all, I have not done any good if the fire department has to remove two dead bodies from the pond rather than one dead body. Sometimes, bad things happen and we are unable to help.

      • To both Chief and Uncommon,

        Both of you make very good points, and I concur completely. I don’t think I need to add anything to your already-salient comments.

      • “It appears generation X and generation Baby Boomer don’t want to help their fellow humans in their greatest time of need.”


        It’s an issue of responsibility to my family. They need me. You’res apparently don’t.

        Must be nice…

    • That’s okay you can continue to be a chickenshit for the rest of your life if you want to… take all your guns that you carry and put them in the bottom of the sea.. you’re the last person that needs to carry a gun.

      • “That’s okay you can continue to be a chickenshit for the rest of your life if you want to…”

        Oh, *please*.

        You must have a very strange family that doesn’t mind if you are considered disposable. Were I your family, I’d be pretty pissed-off about your hero complex. Pretty fucking selfish on your part not to be thinking of their welfare *first*. Paychecks must rain down on you wherever you live.

        My number one priority is being there for my family…

    • To Dud Brain who lives in a world of fantasy.

      No he is speaking the truth. See my above post as to why many people who are armed do not do anything. Its called self preservation.

      • I more or less agree with your above post. That doesn’t lessen Swalwell’s douchebagery. He’s trying to say an armed citizen isn’t ever going to take out the bad guy. He was just looking for an opportunity for a cheap shot. This particular example was dumb because it was a car chase, but he and his followers aren’t exactly known for their intelligence.

      • Imagine walking down the street, or driving your car, and a car speeds by with a guy holding a rifle, being chased by the police. Even if you’re a professional marksman, are you going to have time to process that, draw, find your target, and take him out before he’s gone? You do realize the “good guy with a gun” isn’t in a sniper position just waiting for something like this to happen? Who lives in a fantasy world?

        • Most CPL (Concealed Pistol License) holders are MORE proficient in the use of firearms than so-called “law enforcement” personnel. The successful “hit ratios” for CPL holders is also much higher. It is fact that CPL holders shoot more accurately, have much more control, and are, in general much better “shots” than just about any “law enforcement” personnel.
          You see, “law enforcement” personnel have “qualified immunity” which shields them from prosecution for their “mistakes and (sometimes) criminal behavior”, something that the civilian CPL community does not have. They can shoot with utter abandon as they have their “immunity” to shield them from prosecution. In addition, law enforcement-friendly prosecutors and “rubber stamp” grand juries have no interest in prosecuting “bad” cops. All one has to do is look at the number of (unjustified) shootings by “law enforcement” that get conveniently “swept under the rug” by the “system” ( prosecutors, judges, grand juries, and internal affairs).
          If I had my way, ALL public officials, (not just “law enforcement”) would have NO official immunity, would be subject to all laws, just like the rest of us, and would be required to purchase an insurance “bond” as a condition of employment. Police “carve outs” would also be prohibited. Any law that citizens are subject to would also be applicable to law enforcement–no exceptions.
          Cops have the right to “spray and pray”, a tactic that WILL get a non-LEO locked up for murder or at least manslaughter. LEOs have immunity and friendly internal affairs and prosecutors, not like civilians.Most LEOs do not train with dynamic targets either.
          CPL holders HAVE TO BE MORE CAREFUL because of liability.

        • The gunman pulled up to people and shot them. The people in their cars had no where to go, especially the people murdered in front of their kids (who were sitting in the back seat). The only way those people could have protected their kids and themselves is if they were carrying on their person and shot back.

      • To Fake Vlad Tepes who is my fantasy

        “No he is speaking the truth”

        Fact: Sacientifc studies have proven beyond all doubt that if Eric Swallowswell ever tells the truth about anything for any reason he will melt into a pool of foul smelling toxic goo and pour himself down a gutter.

    • I mean, this sounds like he’s asking for an armed militia to step up and take over where the government is failing.

      Here I thought he didn’t understand the 2A.

    • I find it inspiring. I think he wants us to carry our guns in public. The more people open carrying the more likely someone stops a murder.

    • Well, Texas does have open carry and many folks here like the Texas gun culture so the question is why haven’t they been able to prevent the mass shootings with a good guy with a gun?
      Sure, at Sunderland an armed citizen opposed the gunman but he was able to kill many people and was only shot when he was leaving the church. That doesn’t seem like a very effective use of private gun ownership.

      Using the POTG logic, since the open carry laws did not prevent this mass shooting we should have no open carry laws, right?

  5. Not glorifying them is one thing.
    Hiding the facts is another.
    The Midland-Odessa killer’s identity was hidden until all his social media was scrubbed.
    Serious students of self defense will now wait years, if ever trying to find out what really happened and how to respond in the future.In the mean time the lying liars will say what they will. I have already seen posts saying this evil doer was a. Bernie buddy & b. card carrying Republican’t.
    We have a huge fight ahead of us to stop “do something”.

  6. And NOW it’s reported the murderous cretin lost his job immediately prior to going on a rampage…sorry but not mentioning his name means NOTHING.

  7. Followed the Times link and couldn’t believe they actually wrote: “…an AR-15-style rifle…”

    But then a few sentences later that turned into: “Similar assault-style weapons have been used in most of the deadliest shootings…”

    Then literally the next sentence it turned into: “Military-style assault weapons…”

    • Again Dud Brain your fixated on semantics. The fact is that IT WAS AN ASSAULT RIFLE now what part of this do you not understand. The Media was correct and yes it is now revealed it was an AR 15 but if it was an AK 47 what the fuck is the difference the result is the same i.e. a weapon of war killing masses of people in seconds. Again what part of this do you not understand.

      • It isn’t difficult to understand. They prefer to call it “Military-style assault weapons.” I was initially surprised that they didn’t. But then they did call it that, because they always do. It’s scarier that way to the ignorant masses.

        • To sane level headed people it is scary no matter how many word games you like to play. Semantics in this case are irrelevant the results are piles of dead bodies so it does not matter what you call them even if you call them military dildo’s.

        • I agree with myself. I have sceintifical knlowedge of sane level headed people and they are scary. They will not let me hurt myself and they medicate me. When I get my hands on one of those military dildos we will have lots of fun in mommy’s basement.

        • If word games are irrelevant, then why don’t they just call them ARs or AR-15 style or semi automatic rifles or modern sporting rifles? Instead of the actual words used by the firearm industry, they intentionally call them military style weapons and weapons of war. There’s a reason for this. It’s called an agenda. No one on this planet tells their friend they bought themselves a weapon of war or a military style weapon. They say I got an AR. You know this deep down, but your agenda driven narrative won’t let you admit it.

          I have a sincere question about your comment that I’ve always wondered. Why is the left so obsessed with dildos?

      • Hey dummy,

        If any modern military wants to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, do they:

        Send in one infantryman with an assault rifle
        send a bomb

  8. Of course we can all speculate what MIGHT have happened or might NOT have happened if the cops had not been bored and harassed the distraught guy by pulling him over because he did not single to change lanes. Even the cops admitted they usually do not do this. Face facts, when people get fired its a traumatic experience even for mild mannered level headed people but it was reported by his neighbor that this guy was a loner and a
    depressed person and being fired in my opinion is what put him on the edge of a breakdown and the cops were the spark that lit the bomb that exploded in his head. I blame the cops almost as much as I blame the guy that lost his mind that day. If a cop is in the vicinity he will find a way to fuck up the day for everyone including himself. That is what the cop lives for. No sane person would take such a job in today’s violent world.

      • To Chris T who gives all decent Kentuckians a bad name.

        We all know you are a rabid racist why remind us of this sickening fact. Typical for a member of the Far Right. I might remind you that the bulk of mass murdered are not immigrants or Muslims but White guys that are committing all the mass murders i.e. 73 per cent of them. And if both were born in America why draw attention to the fact they may have had Spanish blood from their ancestors. For example, when the Racist Trump said a Supreme Court Judge that was born in the U.S. and was of Spanish decent could never give him an unprejudiced ruling on immigration. The problem we have in this country is with people like Trump and you. Trump has divided this country and given people like you the idea that “racism is socially acceptable again”. Sorry its not among normal decent people which leaves you out in the cold.

        I want all good Kentuckians to know that we of the general public know Chris is an aberration of your State and we know that the rest of you are decent Americans.

    • To Fake Vlad Tepes

      ” I blame the cops almost as much as I blame the guy that lost his mind that day.”

      You blame the guy that committed the murders? What is wrong with you? We are supposed to blame the NRA and the republicans and Donald Trump not the killer. Are you trying to get us fired? We need the money we are almost out of paper bags and glue.

  9. The shooting in Texas a week ago prove that if there were armed people there they did not do anything and in the corrupt world of Capitalvania who can really blame them. There is nothing that will prevent the relatives of the deceased from suing you even if the Police do not charge you with any crime. The so called “castle doctrine” laws are very misleading in regards to this. People know they will be in a legal nightmare when they shoot someone even if it was totally justified. They also know that their friends, family and everyone at work will never treat them in the same way when they find out they killed someone. Studies on the aftermath of shootings prove all of the above beyond all doubt.

    • To Fake Vlad Tepes:

      “The shooting in Texas a week ago prove that if there were armed people there they did not do anything”

      Fact: Every single one of the people who were there had arms and they did not even notice the bloody mass murder shooting going on right next to them. They were to busy spending there money and buying stuff I can not afford because I do not want to get a real job. Studies on the aftermath of the shooting in Texas prove all of the above beyond all doubt.

      • “Fact: Every single one of the people who were there had arms and they did not even notice the bloody mass murder shooting going on right next to them. They were to busy spending there money and buying stuff I can not afford because I do not want to get a real job. Studies on the aftermath of the shooting in Texas prove all of the above beyond all doubt.”

        Your fact is right is as factual as Chuck Norris Facts.

  10. I hear only 4% of Texans have permission to carry a gun and less than that do. They rely on the police state to save them.

    • I know plenty of people that got a carry permit and don’t carry. They basically got it as a just in case I feel like I need it scenario.

    • 4.8% according to the Texas DPS (as of 2018, that may have changed either way.) This is indeed below the national average of approximately 7% (that includes the many states not requiring permits at all), and well below the national average of approximately 9% when you exclude “issue only to the police and the wealthy and powerful (and any plebians they deign to ask for a permit for)” states like New York, Hawaii and California. However, as far as the “how often does one carry” question, I don’t know about you but if a stranger calls me claiming to be conducting a survey and asks how often I carry a gun, my answer will be “none of your business, have a nice day.” I don’t know who these foolish and/or brazen people telling strangers on the phone they have and carry guns, but I’m surprised they make up even 2% of the Texas population.

      • All those guns in Texas seem to be for “sport.” Just hunting and range days.

        In about three years Texas had: Dallas, Sante Fe, Sutherland, El Paso, Odessa. How many more reasons does a Texan need before they exercise their human right to self preservation?

        It really sucks to see a bunch of Texas men lying on the ground with women and children (who are screaming, crying and shaking) with only a cell phone in their hands while they beg for a cop to save their family.

        No wonder Republicans are now switching sides.

  11. Here’s a report I found this morning on the Odessa, TX, shooter. I do not know if Ocensor or the author of the report are reliable sources, but it’s a quick read, so decide for yourself:


    Insofar as not giving a mass shooter’s name initially in Police updates to prevent him/her from attaining “15 minutes of fame”, that’s about as realistic and doable a goal as trying to empty Lake Superior with a 5 gallon bucket, as is illustrated in the AP release quoted above. Yes. I purposely did not include his name because I think there is some value in not splashing his name around repeatedly and am sure it is already known well enough. For people like this guy, it’s not “15 minutes of fame”, it should be “15 minutes of infamy”….and too bad if his family takes a few on the chin for their contribution to the creation of a monster…

  12. What would it take to enact a law that would go along the lines below? It wouldn’t stop these shootings, but I’m quite sure that it would reduce them – much better than any gun-free zone sticker

    – Police would NOT release names and/or pictures of any suspected or convicted mass shooter (will have to define mass shooters as those embarking on the willful shooting of random people, excluding gang-related and other crime-related shootings)
    – It would be a Federal offense for media or anyone to publish the identity or picture of the same, including (especially) through social media
    – Mass shooters killed or executed would be cremated, and their ashes dispersed namelessly in a body of water (sewage would seem appropriate)
    – Convicted mass shooters to be incarcerated with pedophiles and other sex offenders, and identified as such in the prison population, with no mention made of their real offenses

    Classify the information, on the basis of threat to the US security, and a smart lawyer should be able to go around the First Amendment.

    • Just like the government did with the JFK assassination files. Trump said he would release them all but he lied and signed them back into secrecy for many more decades.

    • No government agency should be allowed to keep any secrets from the American people. If your policy has to “get around the First Amendment” maybe Nazi Germany , Red China or Israel would be a better place for you to live.

    • Assault with a deadly weapon [AR-15] was not responded to by law enforcement a few weeks before the rampage. The cops would have known who they were pulling over if the report was on system. They could have charged him for the assault crime before he used the evidence from the previous crime to commit another. They literally waited until it slapped them in the face. But they were more willing to pull him over for a traffic violation to give him a ticket instead of charge him with assault with a deadly weapon on a Mexican immigrant.

      Good old community policing: write tickets, leave the violent criminals alone. What could possibly happen?

    • By the way, I heard one of the cops had a negligent discharge at Cinergy before the gunman made it there. This caused confusion as to where the gunman was because it went over the radio as shots fired at Cinergy. Luckily he actually was traveling to Cinergy.

    • Latest info.

      The gunman was a prohibited person for some reason. He attempted to buy a gun through a FFL but failed the background check. He got the gun else where, most likely from a private sale.

      The FBI were at his house noting all the shell casing on his property of him shooting the rifle. The police did not arrest the man or seek to get a search warrant after reports of him having a gun, which he is not allowed to have. They just let him be. The sheriff denies they had any report or calls for service about him threatening people with his AR or him firing his gun on his property on file. So someone is lying, either those Mexicans are making stuff up or the sheriff is covering his ass.

      The gunman and his employer called the cops on each other to complain about his firing. The gunman also called the FBI to talk to them about why he was motivated to do this before he started shooting. Law enforcement does not want to say what he said, they are only saying he was “rambling” about the problems in his life.

      Here comes the “universal background check” and “red flag” legislation.

      • “The gunman was a prohibited person for some reason. He attempted to buy a gun through a FFL but failed the background check. He got the gun else where, most likely from a private sale.”

        This does show that a UBC on private sales could have made a difference.

        Yes, the criminal had no concern about breaking the law, but that’s not the point of a UBC. The idea is that the seller of the weapon would have reservations about committing a felony by selling without viewing identification.

        Not only would the seller be breaking the UBC law, he would also be engaging in a criminal conspiracy. And if the firemen were used in a crime, the seller would be viewed as an accessory before the fact.

        The added legal jeopardy would serve as a disincentive for private individuals to provide firearms to criminals and terrorists, which is exactly the point of a UBC.

  13. Good this should save the media whores even the pretense of having to report facts. Now they can skip straight to narrative building.

    • In Hong Kong, China will not only remove the burden of too much freedom for the Hong Kongese, but will also lift the burdens of life as well

  14. The US legal system has beaten the thought of doing anything out of most armed citizens.

    The system makes it clear. If your a cop and you do something, even if its questionable or outright wrong, your protected.

    If your an armed citizen and you do ANYTHING get ready for lawsuit, lawsuit, lawsuit, and possibly prison.

    Sorry man,

    Until we see a change in the consequence for “doing somthing”, we’ll mostly have to sit it out unless our lives are in danger and we’re cornered.

    • If a man is shooting and I see him.. and I can possibly engage him..he will be shot unless he shoots me first.. I’m not going to live like a coward and have it on my conscience I let innocent people die and did nothing.. that is exactly why these mass shootings are happening.. the first reason is to prove that these so-called assault rifles are a public Danger…. the next reason is to prove that even armed citizens will do nothing to stop them.. believe it or not the most detrimental thing to our second amendment rights if citizens carrying weapons do nothing.. chickenshit people not reacting will definitely be the end of concealed/open carry.. that will make the argument for concealed and open carry an empty argument.. a lot of police officers want honest people armed because they know they can’t be everywhere all the time..

  15. And when will the ACLU or some other misguided organization accuse them of “violating” some perp’s “civil rights”? They’ve such asinine claims regarding 9/11 associates.

    • So the law should only protect people you like and agree with. Gotcha. There is a scene in A Man for all Seasons about you.

      • I am convinced that this is virtue signaling by these people expressing this nonsense. They want to show just how completely against the murderous action that they spout these ridiculous things.

        We get it y’all. You are appalled at the depravity. I am appalled at it too. However, don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.

  16. I’m for the withholding of names to prevent losers from trying to gain infamy, like the Newtown shooter. I don’t like that you can get your manifesto widely distributed by murdering a few people. However, recent mistaken coverage/propaganda by the media start to make doubt that position. The Gilroy and El Paso shooters were labeled as white supremacists by the media, but they were against the influx of population, of which Latinx are the fastest growing rate. The Gilroy loser also called out Silicon Valley whites. They seem to be, at least in part, feedback from environmental doom and gloom saying that we’ve destroyed or are destroying the environment, and that there’s no future. However, there isn’t one factor. We need accurate information to create an effective response to limit these acts in the future. Knowing that they didn’t have disqualifying criteria and bought their weapons legally shows that universal background checks won’t help. There isn’t a new disqualifying criteria to be added that they have in common, other than age, and a handful out of millions of 18-21 year olds isn’t evidence that age is a contributing factor.

    • “I don’t like that you can get your manifesto widely distributed by murdering a few people.”

      In the absence of the truth, you will get propaganda. After a short while, the propaganda is all that is remembered if it is not immediately countered with the truth. There is a political reason that NZ doesn’t want their people to be able to read a certain manifesto. Without the people being able to read it for themselves, the government there has been able to propagandize the event with no counter to their lies.

      Some of us read these manifestos so we have the best chance of knowing when the public is being fed complete propaganda or not. Without being able to read them at the time of the incident, there is no truth to counter the lies.

      • Whether we want to admit it or not, there’s still plenty of illiberalism, big-government worship, and knee-jerk reaction on the right. It should be opposed just as the same from the left.

    • How can we pretend to live in a free and just society if we don’t know who the government is criminalizing, but just have to take the government word what happens. The public record has to be PUBLIC or by definition there is no public record. We don’t want a secret police.

  17. Ever watch a sporting event on TV when some knucklehead runs onto the field? Do they show him? No. Why not? They don’t want him getting real-time publicity. The name eventually gets out as his friends or the court appearance reveals it. But that is after the event dies down.

    In addition all social media and email sites need to be notified to lock and snapshot anything the perp put on their site, pertains or references the perp.

    • Apples and oranges. One is a prank. The other is being used as a vehicle for tyrannical law and cultural warfare.

      It doesn’t take long for propaganda to be accepted as the narrative. It can take years, sometimes decades, to counter that brief window of lies with the truth. Any artificial delay in the information is a tremendous mistake.

      • I don’t think the police should be withholding the information, but it would be great if the press could all agree to not constantly plaster the persons name and face everywhere constantly. A lot of these shooters are clearly just trying to get a few minutes of infamy as they go out. I have zero interest in the exact identity of these people yet I can immediately think of the names and faces of the worst mass shooters. That’s what they wanted.

  18. This is a gigantic mistake. Some of us listen to public safety scanners and are scouring the web during and after these incidents in order to preserve as much of the record as possible in an effort to reduce the amount of potential misinformation and censorship. Any delay in mentioning the name gives the social media platforms, and anyone else in a position to do so, a chance to scrub the existing record.

    Not naming the shooter(s) as soon as the information is known plays right into the propaganda MSM and future tyrants’ hands. It’s a virtue signalling mistake. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Don’t fall for it!

    • Withholding facts in these cases is like begging to go first in Russian Roulette using a semi-automatic. The truth will lose out to propaganda practically 100% of the time.

      Are people really so myopic that they don’t see this obvious outcome? The left is playing a tune and so many, in a rush to virtue signal (YES, looking at you POTG), that they are dancing to it. DO SOMETHING! SUPPRESS INFORMATION! CREMATE THE SON OF A BITCH!

      Yeah, do something. Be armed. Don’t buy into the hype. Stop playing into the hands of tyrants. Don’t be morons.

  19. Here’s a compromise: How about everybody agrees to only use the single most embarrassing picture that can be found of the shooter.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here