OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[Guru]

There are easy solutions, the NRA will never allow them and fox news will rile up a nervous base to have people believe the issues are actually video games-mental health-weed-school counselors-people who look different-women......https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/07/right-wing-media-highland-park-shooting

Easy solutions.
1. Gun registration
2. Strict red flag laws
3. Increased background checks

Treat gun ownership like car ownership, like having a license to drive, like getting life insurance.

You want to own a gun, sure but you have to prove a level of responsibility to do so.

It's not a constitutional issue. The Constitution doesn't explicit limit gun ownership in any way. But we have already drawn a societal line that says the average person can't own a missile launcher. Persons in Mental Health Crisis shouldn't have guns. Etc. Society has the ability to create parameters around the law without taking away everyone's guns.

[Ctownbulls]

So is your solution just to say "**** it" it's going to happen anyway?

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Look, Opoids kill more people and is a much higher epidemic. We still have those. Tons of people die from alcohol abuse, dui and alcohol related diseases, we still have that. Why are guns a bigger issue? We love the splashy headline because it's a big event but it's really not a signifigant source of death in this country from legally purchased guns. Most gun violence is from those involved in illegal activity and can't actually legally get a gun.

Because guns kill other people

Those who argue against these facts can't be argued with.

[Almost Retired]

Why did the Red Flag laws already in place not prevent this Highland Park shooter? He had numerous reasons to be banned from buying weapons. His father should never had assisted him in doing so with his track record. This was just another pathetic loser. Look at the kid's pictures with the pink hair and girl's pigtails. Things have not changed that much in the 50-60 years since I was in grammar school and high school. The kid was probably relegated to being an outcast and was probably picked on 4 days a week. Girls in his class probably kicked his ass. So he turns into a freak as some sort of escape mechanism. And his freak fringe existence caused the mental health problems that eventually led to this horrific incident. But if the authorities are supposed to be on the lookout for young men of this nature they failed horribly, despite numerous behaviors that should have set off loud alarm bells. We have a serious people problem. Not a problem with law abiding gun owners. We have no choice but to attack the problem on the people side of the equation. With the rulings in Heller and Bruen gun rights are here to stay with perhaps a few tweaks at the margins. You can't have crime rates as high as they are and expect people to give up the only protection they have. Cities are losing police to retirements and other, safer locations. Even San Diego has lost 22% of it's force in recent years due to resistance to Covid vaccine mandates. In New York City cops are retiring on the day their pension vests, and some aren't even waiting around that long. Chicago can't replace cops that are retiring. Even Austin, Texas where I live has a problem with a police shortage. You can't park your car on the street for fear of losing your catalytic converter. Crime is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. That's an environment where the authorities can't expect people to cooperate with gun restrictions.

[Almost Retired]

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/07/you-know-what-would-deter-more-shootings-than-red-flag-laws-executing-mass-killers-quickly/

[panthermark]

snip... With the rulings in Heller and Bruen gun rights are here to stay with perhaps a few tweaks at the margins. .

I don't think people here fully understand the enormous impact of Bruen and what it means. RvW came out the nest day, and that became the focus of attention.

There is no more two-step scrutiny. We were hoping for an upgrade to strict scrutiny, but got a much more powerful THT instead. (Text, History, Tradition)

For those that don't know:
------------
*The Court expressly rejected the “two-step” approach often employed by lower courts since the McDonald v. Chicago decision in 2010, saying that the Constitution “demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history.”

*The Court expressly held that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.”

*Quoting the McDonald plurality opinion, the Court held that: “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”

*The Court said that: “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
----
In layman's terms. Previously, lower courts have been incorrectly applying a two-tiered threshold to 2nd Amendment issues based on intermediate scrutiny (there are 3 levels of scrutiny, strict, intermediate, and rational basis). Lower courts would often uphold city/state bans under the rational of "Well, while it meets the 2nd amendment, we uphold the ban because we want to balance other things". It was a means to an end strategy.

Nothing else in the Bill of Rights has to go through a "two step" strategy or needs government permission. Only the 2nd was treated this way.
NO MORE, THAT CRAP IS DONE.
Once Bruen was decided, 4 other cases in the SC pipe were immediately GVR'd (Granted cert, Vacated the lower court rulings and Remanded for reconsideration)
Young v. Hawaii - Open Carry ban
Bianchi v. Frosh - Maryland Assault Weapon Ban
ANJRPC v. Grewal - New Jersey "High cap" magazine ban
Duncan v. Bonta - California "High cap" magazine ban

What does that mean? That the lower court decisions to uphold the bans were all vacated by SCOUTUS, and they were sent back to the lower courts to "try again buddy, only without the two step approach. Does it meet the 2nd Amendment, yes or no? (and most lower courts already said "yes" in a two step strategy decisions). No more "It meets the 2nd amendment, BUT...."

*In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.

So, a lot of the so-called "solutions" being discussed here are already non-starters decided by SCOTUS.

We have not even gotten into WV vs EPA which also came out, and most here have no clue as to what that means. But for those of us folks arguing with the ATF over what is or isn't something based on actual written law, and tired of the ATF changing their definition of written law to suit the needs of whatever administration in office (instead of going through congress to have the law updated,) it is huge step towards knocking back Chevron deference. Especially when most Federal firearm issues revolve around 10 year felony sentences and $250,000 fines. You cannot have an unelected body "changing" the definition of written law, ESPECIALLY if it would involve criminal law. It is ILLEGAL for law enforcement agencies to threaten you under penalty of law with illegal laws. That ATF has been doing that way too much. "We will make us this law, then threaten you with a felony unless you comply. You can fight it in court, but our resources are unlimited and we will bankrupt you the entire way, with the best possible outcome you could hope for would be for you to keep whatever you had before we decided on a whim that it was illegal.....soooo....your choice"

It is all a shame, because there are some people out there that really should not own firearms, but you can't deny everyone a Constitutional Right because of a few.

[Ben Wilson25]

Where were all these Republicans screaming "You can't let the actions of tiny minority of bad guys take rights and freedoms from the vast majority of laws abiding people!" when Trump signed the Muslim travel ban?

[1985Bear]

The semantics around gang violence vs suicide vs mass shooting is ridiculous. America leads the world in all gun death categories!!

Every single type of gun related death, USA #1.

Can you be the world leader in a worse category?

I do appreciate the gun rights responses here. I still have not seen a single pro gun response here that acknowledges that gun violence is a problem and offers a solution or change of any kind. Doing nothing and expecting change is nuts.

We have a lot of people on this forum. Does anyone know a single person that has saved their life or protected their family by firing a gun at an intruder? Get a security camera and a dog, just as much of a deterrent to stop random acts of violence entering you home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

Opioids and alcohol aren’t designed to kill. Guns are, and the statistical case for their use in personal protection is very, very shaky.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study

I’ve seen the word “feelings” thrown around in this thread a lot, but if your average gun owner were to compare the statistical likelihood that they’d use a firearm to defend their family with the likelihood that it would be stolen, lost, involved in the accidental death of a child or a suicide, or used against them by the very people they hope to deter… well, they’d probably opt to own one anyway because it makes them *feel* safe, or strong, or as though their connected to a culture they value.

I think it’s positively insane that those feelings are prioritized over innocent lives, especially when you can find many, many examples of strong, effective gun regulation across the world. But, the supposed “facts over feelings” party has a stranglehold on the issue, and the majority of Americans who want to see a change are suffering for it.

It isn't an issue of probability. It's a very straightforward issue of an individual right to protect oneself, because the state is not able to do so and never will. We do all sorts of things for security that we know we're likely to lose out on - basically every type of insurance, for example. A gun is the fundamental insurance policy. Just because it's likely to be a waste of money doesn't mean it's not of value. The bolded things are all absolutely trivial things to avoid for any responsible adult.

Are there any examples of countries going from very heavily armed populaces to nearly unarmed via legislation? I'd be curious to know where and when.

The insurance analogy doesn't work at all. With insurance, you agree to experience tolerable loss (premiums) to prevent intolerable loss. On the other hand, your average gun owner tries to prevent intolerable loss with a tool that, statistically speaking, increases the likelihood that they'll experience intolerable loss.

And sure, a very responsible gun owner may be able to prevent their weapon from being stolen, lost, or used to kill themselves or a family member, but no aspect of public safety policy is crafted strictly for responsible people. If it were, the speed limit would be 20 mph higher and I'd be able to walk onto a plane without security checks. Irresponsible gun owners, minority though they may be, are causing a great deal of societal harm without much measurable societal benefit to balance it out.

[Guru]

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/07/you-know-what-would-deter-more-shootings-than-red-flag-laws-executing-mass-killers-quickly/

You think these people are concerned about dying? They want to die.

[Guru]

Irresponsible gun owners, minority though they may be, are causing a great deal of societal harm without much measurable societal benefit to balance it out.

I love this...

[panthermark]

And sure, a very responsible gun owner may be able to prevent their weapon from being stolen, lost, or used to kill themselves or a family member, but no aspect of public safety policy is crafted strictly for responsible people. If it were, the speed limit would be 20 mph higher and I'd be able to walk onto a plane without security checks. Irresponsible gun owners, minority though they may be, are causing a great deal of societal harm without much measurable societal benefit to balance it out.

That is an interesting analogy.

I love the part about them causing great harm without much measurable societal benefit. Very true.

However, where I see the analogy to gun laws is more like this:
In an attempt to combat illegal street racing, those that drive without a license, and those that drive without insurance, we are going to reduce all speed limits by 20%, require annual driving retests to renew a license, and add an additional 20% to all insurance premiums for anyone who owns a vehicle capable of speeds greater than 80 mph an hour. No one needs a vehicle that can go faster than that anyway.

Lowering the speed limit for everyone won't stop people from illegal street racing. They are already doing something illegal, why would they care? Is it all of a sudden more illegal?

Requiring annual driving tests to renew a license will not stop people who drive without a license from driving without a license. Why would they care about an annual retest to renew their license if they don't drive with one anyway?

Add an additional 20% insurance premium for everyone that has a vehicle capable of +80mph is irrelevant to those who don't pay insurance in the first place.

The only people this burdens and impacts are the people that followed the laws already.

Edit: Actually, a better analogy would if this only applied to motorcycles. Since most people don't ride motorcycles, they would not care. But the people the do ride, and follow the laws, would be furious.

[Guru]

And sure, a very responsible gun owner may be able to prevent their weapon from being stolen, lost, or used to kill themselves or a family member, but no aspect of public safety policy is crafted strictly for responsible people. If it were, the speed limit would be 20 mph higher and I'd be able to walk onto a plane without security checks. Irresponsible gun owners, minority though they may be, are causing a great deal of societal harm without much measurable societal benefit to balance it out.

That is an interesting analogy.

I love the part about them causing great harm without much measurable societal benefit. Very true.

However, where I see the analogy to gun laws is more like this:
In an attempt to combat illegal street racing, those that drive without a license, and those that drive without insurance, we are going to reduce all speed limits by 20%, require annual driving retests to renew a license, and add an additional 20% to all insurance premiums for anyone who owns a vehicle capable of speeds greater than 80 mph an hour. No one needs a vehicle that can go faster than that anyway.

Lowering the speed limit for everyone won't stop people from illegal street racing. They are already doing something illegal, why would they care? Is it all of a sudden more illegal?

Requiring annual driving tests to renew a license will not stop people who drive without a license from driving without a license. Why would they care about an annual retest to renew their license if they don't drive with one anyway?

Add an additional 20% insurance premium for everyone that has a vehicle capable of +80mph is irrelevant to those who don't pay insurance in the first place.

The only people this burdens and impacts are the people that followed the laws already.

Edit: Actually, a better analogy would if this only applied to motorcycles. Since most people don't ride motorcycles, they would not care. But the people the do ride, and follow the laws, would be furious.

Are people afraid to go to 4th of July parades because of street racing? Send their kids to school?

[panthermark]

And sure, a very responsible gun owner may be able to prevent their weapon from being stolen, lost, or used to kill themselves or a family member, but no aspect of public safety policy is crafted strictly for responsible people. If it were, the speed limit would be 20 mph higher and I'd be able to walk onto a plane without security checks. Irresponsible gun owners, minority though they may be, are causing a great deal of societal harm without much measurable societal benefit to balance it out.

That is an interesting analogy.

I love the part about them causing great harm without much measurable societal benefit. Very true.

However, where I see the analogy to gun laws is more like this:
In an attempt to combat illegal street racing, those that drive without a license, and those that drive without insurance, we are going to reduce all speed limits by 20%, require annual driving retests to renew a license, and add an additional 20% to all insurance premiums for anyone who owns a vehicle capable of speeds greater than 80 mph an hour. No one needs a vehicle that can go faster than that anyway.

Lowering the speed limit for everyone won't stop people from illegal street racing. They are already doing something illegal, why would they care? Is it all of a sudden more illegal?

Requiring annual driving tests to renew a license will not stop people who drive without a license from driving without a license. Why would they care about an annual retest to renew their license if they don't drive with one anyway?

Add an additional 20% insurance premium for everyone that has a vehicle capable of +80mph is irrelevant to those who don't pay insurance in the first place.

The only people this burdens and impacts are the people that followed the laws already.

Edit: Actually, a better analogy would if this only applied to motorcycles. Since most people don't ride motorcycles, they would not care. But the people the do ride, and follow the laws, would be furious.

Are people afraid to go to 4th of July parades because of street racing? Send their kids to school?

Seems you missed the analogy.

But OK....

Almost all public school zones are gun free zone. That is well known by all gun owners. How can there be school shootings at schools when it is clearly illegal to bring a gun into a school? If bad guys would just follow the law, there would be no need to be concerned about school shootings.

Highland Park has an assault weapons ban/'high cap" mag ban on the books already. How can there be a shooting at a parade with an assault style weapon and high cap mag when it is clearly illegal have such a weapon in Highland Park? If that jackwad would have just followed the law, we would not be having this coversation.

Illinois/Chicago/Cook County has all types of laws. Must need a FOID Card to purchase a weapon and ammo. Must be 21 to own a handgun. Must have a CCW permit to conceal a handgun. Magazines over 15 rounds are illegal (unless you have a FOID/CCW, which is a really funny law because if you don't have a FOID or CCW, it would be illegal for you to have a gun anyway. Another one of those "we will make it extra illegal" feel good laws). How can all these "teens" in the hood go around shooting each other when it is way super duper illegal for them to have handguns and pistol ammo?

Don't quote me on it, but I'm pretty sure there are laws against murder as well. But if we add some MORE laws, I'm sure that will finally stop people that don't follow laws anyway, from not following the law.
WAIT, I GOT IT!
We should add a law that makes it ILLEGAL to not follow the law! Profit!

[Almost Retired]

Where were all these Republicans screaming "You can't let the actions of tiny minority of bad guys take rights and freedoms from the vast majority of laws abiding people!" when Trump signed the Muslim travel ban?

Travel into the United States is not a act specifically protected by the Constitution. They had a rational basis for the limitations imposed ...the public health. The Constitution protects citizens of the United States, not foreign nationals. Congress could halt all travel into the United States if it chose to do so. It could halt all immigration into the country if it chose to do so, and it has from time to time imposed moratoriums on immigration in order to allow for periods of assimilation. In such instances foreign nationals wishing to enter the United States were out of luck. They lacked standing to challenge the Constitutionality of such laws passed by Congress.

[Almost Retired]

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/07/you-know-what-would-deter-more-shootings-than-red-flag-laws-executing-mass-killers-quickly/

You think these people are concerned about dying? They want to die.

They crave the attention and the notoriety more so than a having a death wish. If this Highland Park dweeb had wanted to die he had plenty of time after shooting into the crowd to eat a bullet. Instead he put on women's clothes and tried to escape from the scene. Most of these cowards just want to be famous for their 15 minutes of infamy. In a couple years only the families of the victims will remember his name.

[TheStig]

So is your solution just to say "**** it" it's going to happen anyway?

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Look, Opoids kill more people and is a much higher epidemic. We still have those. Tons of people die from alcohol abuse, dui and alcohol related diseases, we still have that. Why are guns a bigger issue? We love the splashy headline because it's a big event but it's really not a signifigant source of death in this country from legally purchased guns. Most gun violence is from those involved in illegal activity and can't actually legally get a gun.

Because guns kill other people

Mine must be defective then. It's never killed or injured anyone.

[Ben Wilson25]

Where were all these Republicans screaming "You can't let the actions of tiny minority of bad guys take rights and freedoms from the vast majority of laws abiding people!" when Trump signed the Muslim travel ban?

Travel into the United States is not a act specifically protected by the Constitution. They had a rational basis for the limitations imposed ...the public health. The Constitution protects citizens of the United States, not foreign nationals. Congress could halt all travel into the United States if it chose to do so. It could halt all immigration into the country if it chose to do so, and it has from time to time imposed moratoriums on immigration in order to allow for periods of assimilation. In such instances foreign nationals wishing to enter the United States were out of luck. They lacked standing to challenge the Constitutionality of such laws passed by Congress.

The right to own assault rifles isn't specifically protected by the Constitution either. We banned assault rifles from 1994-2004 to protect...the public health. The travel ban didn't just affect foreign nationals. If a Muslim US citizen were getting married or having a baby and wanted their family there who lived in one of the banned countries they would suffer in a real way. Intellectually the overarching concept is the same anyway. You argument boils down to pedanticism.

[Ctownbulls]

Look, Opoids kill more people and is a much higher epidemic. We still have those. Tons of people die from alcohol abuse, dui and alcohol related diseases, we still have that. Why are guns a bigger issue? We love the splashy headline because it's a big event but it's really not a signifigant source of death in this country from legally purchased guns. Most gun violence is from those involved in illegal activity and can't actually legally get a gun.

Because guns kill other people

Mine must be defective then. It's never killed or injured anyone.

Congrats.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

And sure, a very responsible gun owner may be able to prevent their weapon from being stolen, lost, or used to kill themselves or a family member, but no aspect of public safety policy is crafted strictly for responsible people. If it were, the speed limit would be 20 mph higher and I'd be able to walk onto a plane without security checks. Irresponsible gun owners, minority though they may be, are causing a great deal of societal harm without much measurable societal benefit to balance it out.

That is an interesting analogy.

I love the part about them causing great harm without much measurable societal benefit. Very true.

However, where I see the analogy to gun laws is more like this:
In an attempt to combat illegal street racing, those that drive without a license, and those that drive without insurance, we are going to reduce all speed limits by 20%, require annual driving retests to renew a license, and add an additional 20% to all insurance premiums for anyone who owns a vehicle capable of speeds greater than 80 mph an hour. No one needs a vehicle that can go faster than that anyway.

Lowering the speed limit for everyone won't stop people from illegal street racing. They are already doing something illegal, why would they care? Is it all of a sudden more illegal?

Requiring annual driving tests to renew a license will not stop people who drive without a license from driving without a license. Why would they care about an annual retest to renew their license if they don't drive with one anyway?

Add an additional 20% insurance premium for everyone that has a vehicle capable of +80mph is irrelevant to those who don't pay insurance in the first place.

The only people this burdens and impacts are the people that followed the laws already.

Edit: Actually, a better analogy would if this only applied to motorcycles. Since most people don't ride motorcycles, they would not care. But the people the do ride, and follow the laws, would be furious.

The flaw of your analogy is that it assumes all criminals will go to any lengths to commit a crime regardless of laws, enforcement, or opportunity.

There’s a segment of street racers that will race regardless of the laws. There is another, likely larger, segment of potential street racers that recognize the consequences of doing 90 mph in 55 mph zone and avoid it.

Then you have the driver who doesn’t want to break the law, but isn’t a conscientious or skilled enough driver to safely operate a vehicle at 80 mph. The speed limit protects us from them (and them from themselves), too.

In the case of gun ownership, you do have criminals who’ll go to any lengths to get a gun. But you have plenty of others who would be deterred by a higher barrier to legal ownership or by reduced opportunities to steal one or to buy one from a straw salesman (btw, when you look at gun trace studies you see that the legal gun supply is a huge driver of illegal guns).

And then, like the driver who isn’t skilled enough to go 80 mph, you have legal gun owners who aren’t conscientious enough to own a gun safely (which is often how those guns end up in the hands of children or criminals).

The idea behind most public safety policy isn’t to eliminate harm but to reduce it, and other countries have had a whole lot of success reducing gun violence by depressing the overall supply and raising the barrier to legal ownership which has the effect of keeping guns away from many - but not all - criminals (street racers) and people who aren’t equipped to own one (bad drivers).

It obviously isn’t a perfect analogy. Outside of extreme examples, everyone’s allowed to own a car. But cars have a demonstrable societal benefit to balance with the societal costs. The case for gun ownership under our current regulatory regime doesn’t look anything like that.

[_txchilibowl_]

+100 to all of Ashy's posts in this thread...