OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[dougthonus]

You put those words in my mouth.

"Forget the stats, for me crime definitely isn't down, its on the rise actually. Thats my opinion based on what I see and hear. No point in arguing my opinion."

I'm not sure how you expect someone to interpret this sentence if it isn't how I interpreted it, but me interpreting it as "I don't care about the data, I care about what I see around me" sure seems like the most straight forward and reasonable interpretation to me.

Yeah its not just a "feeling".

I'm sorry that you were disappointed with my semantics of it.

Do you understand the generalized point that if you begin a conversation with "I don't care about stats" in a thread about a problem that affects 400M people in the country and only care about what you see locally, that your opinion based on your heavily localized viewpoint and ignoring of big data that affects the nation as a whole is not as valuable and why you might open yourself up to trying to look at a bigger picture than what is outside your back door if you want to discuss the bigger picture?

I mean if you want to talk about just your neighborhood, that's fine, you absolutely know more about what's going on around your neighborhood than anyone else here (barring someone else living in your neighborhood here), but also no one else here is discussing about your localized neighborhood or is fighting you on what is in your neighborhood. Your neighborhood is one of millions and has a relevancy of 1/total neighborhoods in the grand scheme of the conversation, which is very small.

It doesn't mean your viewpoint on that is wrong. I'm sure your viewpoint on it has considerable value, just its value is severely limited in scope when discussing the nation.

At any rate, my apologies, I don't mean to belabor the point. I wanted to point out to you that your approach would cause you to be dismissed easily, and if you want your opinion to carry more weight that you might want to think about that, but it isn't my business, so again, apologies on offending you. I will shut down this line of conversation about how you present your thoughts as it obviously has no value to you or anyone else.

[moorhosj]

So because I disagree with what some statistics are saying where I live there is no discussion to be had? Ok discussion is over.

Yes, outright declaring that facts don't matter to your decision process makes it nearly impossible to have a fruitful discussion. The answer would be to show the data for where you live and why it is wrong or skewed. Or you could take another path entirely in the discussion.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

"Forget the stats, for me crime definitely isn't down, its on the rise actually. Thats my opinion based on what I see and hear. No point in arguing my opinion."

I'm not sure how you expect someone to interpret this sentence if it isn't how I interpreted it, but me interpreting it as "I don't care about the data, I care about what I see around me" sure seems like the most straight forward and reasonable interpretation to me.

Yeah its not just a "feeling".

I'm sorry that you were disappointed with my semantics of it.

Do you understand the generalized point that if you begin a conversation with "I don't care about stats" in a thread about a problem that affects 400M people in the country and only care about what you see locally, that your opinion based on your heavily localized viewpoint and ignoring of big data that affects the nation as a whole is not as valuable and why you might open yourself up to trying to look at a bigger picture than what is outside your back door if you want to discuss the bigger picture?

I mean if you want to talk about just your neighborhood, that's fine, you absolutely know more about what's going on around your neighborhood than anyone else here (barring someone else living in your neighborhood here), but also no one else here is discussing about your localized neighborhood or is fighting you on what is in your neighborhood. Your neighborhood is one of millions and has a relevancy of 1/total neighborhoods in the grand scheme of the conversation, which is very small.

It doesn't mean your viewpoint on that is wrong. I'm sure your viewpoint on it has considerable value, just its value is severely limited in scope when discussing the nation.

Clearly you just want to make a point about your ability to communicate the English language on the internet here. I said I didn't care about those stats and I said why and I said I didn't want to argue it. But here we are. Look, I understand stats and the need for stats. Maybe I don't care about that particular stat because I'm not just talking about violent crimes, I'm talking about crime in general so I don't care about those stats what I care about is what I see and hear going on where I live. There's no need to educate me further.

I remember the good old 80's growing up and running the streets as a child with no worries. Maybe there's less violent crimes since the 80's/90's but I'm just talking crime in general and its increasing atm at least in the area I live.

Here is an article from the LA Times:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-22/how-bad-is-crime-in-l-a-here-are-the-numbers-behind-the-mayoral-race-rhetoric
While many of the candidates talked about an uptick in crime, billionaire businessman Rick Caruso gave a particularly dark view of public safety.

“Everybody in this city — at every corner of the city, no matter where you live, what your background is — is scared to walk out their doors. Everybody is worried about crime, is worried about their children going to school,” Caruso said. “I was in Watts the other day at the St. Lawrence school listening to those parents worry about when the sun goes down what happens. Children are asleep on the floor because bullets go through the window.”

At another point in the debate, he said: “Right now we have some of the worst crime we’ve had in the history of Los Angeles.”

So what is the truth about crime in L.A.?

While crime has ticked up, violent crime is nowhere near its peak of the 1990s.

Homicides in Los Angeles hit 397 in 2021, the most in more than a decade and a 50% increase from 2019 — but well short of the 1,000 deaths reached during years in the 1990s.

LAPD Chief Michel Moore told the civilian Police Commission on Tuesday that robberies involving firearms were up 57% from 2020 and 60% from 2019 — with hundreds more incidents so far this year than last.

Through the middle of March, property crime was up more than 5% over last year, with car thefts again a major concern. Compared to this point in 2020, vehicle thefts are up nearly 44%."

You can't just disregard areas in this country because in the grand scheme the stats for the country are getting better. Any uptick anywhere should be cause for concern. If we don't care then why would politicians care? What this has to do with mass shootings? I don't know. But once again I am going to own a fire arm to protect my wife and little ones.

[Dresden]

We see this with facts on how guns in your house do not make you safer. It increases the risks of both homicide AND suicide. https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/

This can't be stated often enough. People always feel like it doesn't apply to them, until it does.

[Dresden]

It's worth noting that the FBI stats I posted earlier only went up to 2018 or 2020. Covid has caused some fluctuations in the crime rates. I know here in SF there has been growing alarm about certain types of crimes- auto break ins, garage break ins, problems with homelessness. Again, some of that has just been a result of Covid, with people losing jobs and turning to crime, etc. But it's also become a political issue, and recently we tossed out our DA about this, even though most of the statistics on crime showed it wasn't any worse now that it had been before he took office.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

We see this with facts on how guns in your house do not make you safer. It increases the risks of both homicide AND suicide. https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/

This can't be stated often enough. People always feel like it doesn't apply to them, until it does.

We've already argued this. This is what I'm talking about when I say we are just chasing our own tails here.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

To simplify what I was trying to say, my response was due to the topic about crime going down. So what I'm saying is I don't see it happening so no I am not giving up my firearms, thanks anyways.

And for those who missed it I have in no way promoted using assault rifles for home defense.

[moorhosj]

We've already argued this. This is what I'm talking about when I say we are just chasing our own tails here.

Which is exactly why I said it’s pointless to discuss when we can’t agree on facts. Bring your own set of data/facts or just move on. Have a great day.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

We've already argued this. This is what I'm talking about when I say we are just chasing our own tails here.

Which is exactly why I said it’s pointless to discuss when we can’t agree on facts. Bring your own set of data/facts or just move on. Have a great day.

Hey I don't want to get into data collection or stat accuracy or any of them. Its a completely different argument and I'm sure you understand that.

But my stance on the stats that we are referring to and when I say I don't care about them its because they are statistics over a certain period of time which is great. But I'm talking about more recently. More recently, regardless of those stats I see more criminal activity. I also don't care about stats when it comes to my decision to protect my family in my home with a firearm. Will I ever have to use a firearm in my lifetime? The stats say no so probably not and I sure hope not. But I will be prepared. And regardless of what the stats say I'm going to be ready because we cannot accurately predict stats going forward. Can we look at trends and guess? Ok but I'm not making my decision based on that. Heck, something big could happen in this country and people, bad people, could start hitting the streets and starting businesses on fire and when there's nothing more to steal there they will start hitting homes. Am I predicting that? No. Could that happen here? Oh hell yeah. But the point I'm just trying to make is I'm not relying on some stat keep my family safe. And yes crime, maybe not violent crime but crime as a whole, is up where I live. I'm not trying to force firearms for home protection on you or anyone else. I'm just doing what makes me feel prepared for the worst possible scenario. No need to take that from me because there's this trend of idiots deciding to mass kill.

[moorhosj]

I also don't care about stats when it comes to my decision to protect my family in my home with a firearm.

Sure, but this makes it an emotional decision as the data shows us your family is less-protected with the gun present.

Will I ever have to use a firearm in my lifetime? The stats say no so probably not and I sure hope not.

So, sometimes you do believe in stats. Or is it just the ones that reinforce your emotional choices?

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

I also don't care about stats when it comes to my decision to protect my family in my home with a firearm.

Sure, but this makes it an emotional decision as the data shows us your family is less-protected with the gun present.

Will I ever have to use a firearm in my lifetime? The stats say no so probably not and I sure hope not.

So, sometimes you do believe in stats. Or is it just the ones that reinforce your emotional choices?

You can call it emotional, I'll call it common sense. We have different opinions. And my family is definitely not less protected. You don't know anything about how things are handled in my household. All you know is the stats of households with guns within the range of your statistical reports.

Like I said, I'm not using stats to make my decision. Not all stats are the same and not all stats tell the whole story. Not all stats are accurate or accurately gathered. You want to argue about stats. That's not what I want to do here. Just like I know that I can't convince you to go out a buy a firearm to protect your home, you are not convincing me that you can take my firearms away. Yes its good to look at stats. Lets make realistic changes based on certain stats, sure. I say trends change though, stats will change. They'll go up and down. Stats. STATS! So I'm not going to say screw it, we're safe, the stats say so. I always think about worst case scenarios and I wouldn't be able to forgive myself if I didn't do anything and everything to keep something from happening to my family. I don't expect everyone to make the same decisions to protect their family as me. And I won't tell anyone how to do it.

[moorhosj]

Just like I know that I can't convince you to go out a buy a firearm to protect your home, you are not convincing me that you can take my firearms away.

I never suggested taking your guns. Either way, you seem to have it all figured out so no need to continue.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

Just like I know that I can't convince you to go out a buy a firearm to protect your home, you are not convincing me that you can take my firearms away.

I never suggested taking your guns. Either way, you seem to have it all figured out so no need to continue.

I was responding to some who were pining to ban all guns. But you're right, no need to continue

[panthermark]

Interesting article that popped up on Yahoo today.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-style-guide-reminds-reporters-181405582.html

The AP reiterated that journalist should stay away from the term assault weapon and assault rifle.

In a Wednesday tweet, the Associated Press Stylebook reiterated guidance advising journalists to refrain from using the terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle,” which they call “highly politicized.”

“The preferred term for a rifle that fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, and automatically reloads for a subsequent shot, is a semi-automatic rifle. An automatic rifle continuously fires rounds if the trigger is depressed and until its ammunition is exhausted,” reads a July 2022 style tip, recommending their usage over more general references to “assault” weaponry.

According to the Stylebook, which is adhered to by newsrooms across the country, the “assault” label “convey[s] little meaning about the actual functions of the weapon.” While the Stylebook change was first made in 2020, conservatives have long derided the modifier as misleading and imprecise.

At least Britannica has it correct. It has to be select fire, and the actual term comes from the "Sturmgewehr" 44 from WW2 .
Sturmgewehr means "assault rifle" in German.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle

If you ever look at the history of that weapon, you will notice it came late in the war (hence you will see names like MP43, and MP44...so think 1943 and 1944 when Russia was closing in on Germany).......and it sure looks a lot like the Russian AK-47 (1947). Hmmm, I wonder where Russia got the design from?

Regardless, I applaud the AP on this because you have to have the terms right.

[Almost Retired]

...

I don't believe for a second that crime rates are down. There are so many soft on crime prosecutors these days and they plea serious crimes down to misdemeanors or decline to prosecute them at all.

...

Hmm you may be on to something, I'm not sure exactly how that is tabulated, but I have read cities/areas where they are proud to be soft on crime (they describe a different way, they're doing something good), but very curious on your point, if anyone knows.

Just google "Soros Prosecutors". It will list the numerous Prosecutors who ere helped into office by large infusions of cash from George Soros. In Cook County of course is Kim Foxx, who has been an utter failure. Look at her handling of the Jesse Smollet case. She should have been removed form office over that. Chicago crime has increased noticeably since she attained office. Look at carjackings alone. That was a rarely reported crime 5-10 years ago. How many do you read about these days? Some o of these soft on crime criminal coddlers: There are about 75 of them in the country. I'll just name a few of these Prosecutors whose policies are causing crime waves all over the country: George Gascon (Los Angles county) , Kim Gardner (St. Louis), Alvin Bragg (Manhattan NYC), Larry Krasner (Philadelphia), John Creuzot (Dallas), Kim Ogg (Houston), Jose Garza (Travis County TX), Buta Biberaj (Louden County Virginia-now facing a recall), Paul Penzone (Phoenix), Diane Becton (East San Francisco Bay), Marilyn Mosby (Baltimore).....there are many others. They are social justice warriors parading around as Prosecutors. They favor no bail, they plea down felonies tp misdemeanors or decline to prosecute them at all. Crime victims are never a concern to them. Soros kind of flew under the radar with this ploy. But people will be paying closer attention the next time.

[League Circles]

We see this with facts on how guns in your house do not make you safer. It increases the risks of both homicide AND suicide. https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/

This can't be stated often enough. People always feel like it doesn't apply to them, until it does.

Do you guys seriously not believe that you could trivially come up with a mainstream criteria or two that would flip those implications? I don't know what the criteria would be but it's just such an overly broad conclusion to draw and a presumption about cause and effect as well. There are quite obviously plenty of people who are much safer with a gun in their house. Just because It can be shown that on average it makes you statistically associated with more danger does not in any way suggest that it is causing the additional danger. It's kind of like saying nobody should get married because it's likely to end in divorce.

[Dresden]

We see this with facts on how guns in your house do not make you safer. It increases the risks of both homicide AND suicide. https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/

This can't be stated often enough. People always feel like it doesn't apply to them, until it does.

Do you guys seriously not believe that you could trivially come up with a mainstream criteria or two that would flip those implications? I don't know what the criteria would be but it's just such an overly broad conclusion to draw and a presumption about cause and effect as well. There are quite obviously plenty of people who are much safer with a gun in their house. Just because It can be shown that on average it makes you statistically associated with more danger does not in any way suggest that it is causing the additional danger. It's kind of like saying nobody should get married because it's likely to end in divorce.

You can live through a divorce. You don't always live through a shooting.

[moorhosj]

I'll just name a few of these Prosecutors whose policies are causing crime waves all over the country: George Gascon (Los Angles county) , Kim Gardner (St. Louis), Alvin Bragg (Manhattan NYC), Larry Krasner (Philadelphia), John Creuzot (Dallas), Kim Ogg (Houston), Jose Garza (Travis County TX), Buta Biberaj (Louden County Virginia-now facing a recall), Paul Penzone (Phoenix), Diane Becton (East San Francisco Bay), Marilyn Mosby (Baltimore).....there are many others. They are social justice warriors parading around as Prosecutors. They favor no bail, they plea down felonies tp misdemeanors or decline to prosecute them at all. Crime victims are never a concern to them. Soros kind of flew under the radar with this ploy. But people will be paying closer attention the next time.

Quite the fever dream. Now try doing Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Miami, and Oklahoma City. Fort Worth had record murders with a Republican Mayor, DA, state legislature, and Governor. Was is the “soft on crime” prosecution?

[Michael Jackson]

Chicago Murders were crazy in the 70-90's Being Bulls fans or basketball fans the prolific death of Benji will always be noted. 92 is generally considered the highwater mark and we also remember the stupid Bulls Chamopionship stuff.

When I scroll through the murder rates though... when Chicago got the most press in the 2000-19 . it is much less than the 90's or even 70's and 80's. Granted we are getting close to those numbers again.

https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ilcrime.htm

I think in general though we are just more aware because of media reports and facebook groups and next door etc... I know for a fact that the affluent suburb I grew up in covered up the majority of the crime. I just think we have monroe intel today honestly, but I could be wrong. I really don't know.

We have a guy like the Southside Strangler still running around with 50+ kills, still in the 70's you had a guy like Richard Kraft who had 60 + Kills in just over a decade of time being active. (he was killing Marines even)

We got some violent criminal people out there, I think the majority of us though are just honestly sick about any violence and we all have our opinions on how to handle the problem. No one is 100% right but we still need to keep a dialogue open and keep trying.

[panthermark]

Chicago Murders were crazy in the 70-90's Being Bulls fans or basketball fans the prolific death of Benji will always be noted. 92 is generally considered the highwater mark and we also remember the stupid Bulls Chamopionship stuff.

When I scroll through the murder rates though... when Chicago got the most press in the 2000-19 . it is much less than the 90's or even 70's and 80's. Granted we are getting close to those numbers again.

https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ilcrime.htm

I think in general though we are just more aware because of media reports and facebook groups and next door etc... I know for a fact that the affluent suburb I grew up in covered up the majority of the crime. I just think we have monroe intel today honestly, but I could be wrong. I really don't know.

We have a guy like the Southside Strangler still running around with 50+ kills, still in the 70's you had a guy like Richard Kraft who had 60 + Kills in just over a decade of time being active. (he was killing Marines even)

We got some violent criminal people out there, I think the majority of us though are just honestly sick about any violence and we all have our opinions on how to handle the problem. No one is 100% right but we still need to keep a dialogue open and keep trying.

That is an interesting point, and maybe a sign of the times. We don't really have serial killers anymore. I guess in the day of Tik-toc, Facebook, Twitter, and the Gram...killing people one by one in secret won't make you infamous. Gotta due it all at once.