OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[panthermark]

Dice, I see you added an edit after I quoted you about wild boars, this took like 10 seconds to find quick videos.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Note, some of the videos use "military stuff" that people seem to think are dangerous like silencers (which really don't make guns silent like the movies) and night vision or thermal. It is better to hunt hugs at night where it is harder for them to see you, and use a silencer to spook them as much before they run.

Google wild boars/feral pigs...
They are barely on the radar here in Illinios (just getting into southern Illinois now, but are really, really, really bad down south). Real bad.

[Jo Jo English]

Also, I didn't edit out your last part to avoid it. I basically agreed with it, so nothing to add, and I already had a wall of text.

Understood. I just think it is kind of counter-intuitive that you ignored that part of my post. The part where I tried to go out of my way to extend a virtual-olive branch at the end. An effort to end a conversation with civility, even this challenging discussion. One that I wholeheartedly meant.

A big part of your argument is that we are focusing incorrectly on the weapons used, and not the breakdowns in society that these troubled people are dealing with before they commit mass murder.

If we are going to care about that, OK, let's do it? It can begin here. It begins with us realizing a "**** your feelings" shirt is a part of the problem, even if we were drawn to it for reasons we think are legitimate. Right?

Let all of us put a better example forward for the kids' reading this.

[moorhosj]

Sure, I bet you already know...but I'll play.

Hood mass shootings - Usually revolve around drugs, gangs, "beef", or respect. They are typically not meticulously planned out months in advance, and usually have a specific target. Basically, unless you are in the hood, or have beef with someone from the hood, you are not likely to be involved in hood shootings. It is usually stray bullets or cross fire that kill innocent bystanders, and it is almost always black on black crime.

"True mass shooting" - Nut job goes to a school, subway, grocery store, church, concert, theatre, whatever...to specifically kill a bunch of random people. Maybe it is over religion, or race, or he was bullied and didn't gate laid enough. Who knows. Sometimes the mass shootings are workplace shootings (and while they suck, are actually more predictable and usually involves someone getting fired). Usually, but not always, said nut job is a lonely, young white male. Shooter may or may not care if he lives. Basically, this is the one the scares everyone because it is so random.

It’s odd how hard you have to work to make your point. Pivoting to “hood mass shooting” at least gives us more clarity on how YOU view things. I look at all mass shootings as a failure of society. The failures being easy access to guns, economic despair, and clear mental health problems. I don’t need to break it down by location to make up some convoluted justification.

Why do you think “true mass shootings” are a mental health problem but “hood mass shootings” aren’t? Seems to me that anyone who knowingly takes another life has some mental health problems. It’s almost like you’ve chosen something specific to separate the two issues. I can’t put my finger on it…

[League Circles]

Why do you think “true mass shootings” are a mental health problem but “hood mass shootings” aren’t? Seems to me that anyone who knowingly takes another life has some mental health problems. It’s almost like you’ve chosen something specific to separate the two issues. I can’t put my finger on it…

IMO, I agree that they're fundamentally different. So-called "Hood mass shootings" don't terrorize all of society because they are not random. I personally think "mental health" has become a wildly overused catch-all phrase. I don't presume that either type of shooting is caused by mental illness. "Hood mass shootings" are caused moreso by desperation, intimidiation, economic drive, and peer pressure, and a lack of value for human life. "random (" true") mass shootings" are caused by an absolute moral deficit and living a meaningless, resentful life. I think maybe it makes it easier for us to write them all of as mental illness, but bad choices and immorality can be the result of a sound mental makeup.

[League Circles]

While I'm OK with a reduction in the capacity and availability of semi auto rifles, I think it would make sense for there to be an exception for ranch owners (and their employees to use). It's not just boars that apparently can cause serious problems from overpopulation, but even deer in many places. Sadly we made the mistake of killling off so many natural predators. Impossible to find a good balance. Populations are always a moving target.

[moorhosj]

IMO, I agree that they're fundamentally different. So-called "Hood mass shootings" don't terrorize all of society because they are not random. I personally think "mental health" has become a wildly overused catch-all phrase. I don't presume that either type of shooting is caused by mental illness. "Hood mass shootings" are caused moreso by desperation, intimidiation, economic drive, and peer pressure, and a lack of value for human life. "random (" true") mass shootings" are caused by an absolute moral deficit and living a meaningless, resentful life. I think maybe it makes it easier for us to write them all of as mental illness, but bad choices and immorality can be the result of a sound mental makeup.

Nobody has actually defined a “hood mass shooting.” Is it based on race? Is it based on city vs non-city? Is it based on economic factors? Is it based on gang affiliation?

It sounds to me like a racist term meant to divert from the actual conversation of broad societal gun violence. To add, there are plenty of gang-related shootings that are random and do terrorize society, not sure what you meant by that. Splitting hairs on every topic to create a new different branch of gun violence is just more proof of how broad the problem is across our society.

[League Circles]

It’s odd how hard you have to work to make your point. Pivoting to “hood mass shooting” at least gives us more clarity on how YOU view things. I look at all mass shootings as a failure of society. The failures being easy access to guns, economic despair, and clear mental health problems. I don’t need to break it down by location to make up some convoluted justification.

Are there any bad things that happen that you blame on individuals instead of society? Seems like progress would be hard to make on issues in general if every terrible event is the fault of society rather than accountable individuals. I actually agree philosophically that we all share to some degree in society's problems and achievements, but I think blame for crimes has definitely got to be focused squarely on the perpetrators (secondary moral blame gets shared by all other individuals IMO). Especially these days. There is no shortage of opportunity in America. Hopefully that continues.

[moorhosj]

Are there any bad things that happen that you blame on individuals instead of society? Seems like progress would be hard to make on issues in general if every terrible event is the fault of society rather than accountable individuals. I actually agree philosophically that we all share to some degree in society's problems and achievements, but I think blame for crimes has definitely got to be focused squarely on the perpetrators (secondary moral blame gets shared by all other individuals IMO). Especially these days. There is no shortage of opportunity in America. Hopefully that continues.

I never absolved the individuals of blame. I spoke from society’s perspective because that’s the side I represent and the side who can influence policy. Blaming each individual after they have committed a mass shouting doesn’t seem like a great strategy for stopping future mass shootings. It might make us feel a little better to offload all responsibility, but it doesn’t solve anything.

[League Circles]

Nobody has actually defined a “hood mass shooting.” Is it based on race? Is it based on city vs non-city? Is it based on economic factors? Is it based on gang affiliation?

It sounds to me like a racist term meant to divert from the actual conversation of broad societal gun violence. To add, there are plenty of gang-related shootings that are random and do terrorize society, not sure what you meant by that. Splitting hairs on every topic to create a new different branch of gun violence is just more proof of how broad the problem is across our society.

I'd be interested to see evidence of that. I haven't heard of them but maybe I'm just unaware. If there are plenty of them, a couple examples should be easy.

As for it being a racist term, I wouldn't use it myself (which is why I used quotes), but fwiw I believe the person you're arguing with is in fact black. The fundamental distinction I think is violence as a result of real or perceived conflict vs violence as a result of a desire to terrorize. The FACT that many suburbanites are crazy scared of people like Crimo but let the daily/weekly stories of gang "mass shootings" go undiscussed (but DEFINITELY not excluded from the statistics they offer on "mass shootings") proves my point. Conflict based violence doesn't freak everyone out unless it's in your neighborhood.

[League Circles]

Are there any bad things that happen that you blame on individuals instead of society? Seems like progress would be hard to make on issues in general if every terrible event is the fault of society rather than accountable individuals. I actually agree philosophically that we all share to some degree in society's problems and achievements, but I think blame for crimes has definitely got to be focused squarely on the perpetrators (secondary moral blame gets shared by all other individuals IMO). Especially these days. There is no shortage of opportunity in America. Hopefully that continues.

I never absolved the individuals of blame. I spoke from society’s perspective because that’s the side I represent and the side who can influence policy. Blaming each individual after they have committed a mass shouting doesn’t seem like a great strategy for stopping future mass shootings. It might make us feel a little better to offload all responsibility, but it doesn’t solve anything.

I think it's worth considering that the general shifting of accountability from individuals to society can perpetuate an attitude amongst future killers that their actions are justified because society has failed them. And society very well may have failed them especially their families for example. But regardless of the degrees of philosophical truth, I think people act more righteously when they genuinely feel fully accountable and responsible for their virtue and for their sins.

[_txchilibowl_]

Criminality is a symptom of societal failure. Unless you believe some people are just naturally bad...

[League Circles]

Criminality is a symptom of societal failure. Unless you believe some people are just naturally bad...

Not sure what "naturally" means. I don't think many, if any, people are genetically destined for immorality, but we're all capable of it. That's how society fails people - enough of us act poorly amd we've failed some individuals.

Likewise, when someone goes and starts trying to kill people, they are definitely "bad". How much is nature vs nurture varies, but it's impossible for society to fail individuals without individuals being capable of failing each other.

[Dresden]

I think that when the discussion about gun control gets sidetracked into arguments about which type of weapon are more lethal, or are more responsible for the deaths we see- I think that line of argument just points to the fact that in order for gun control to work, and it has been shown to work over and over again in other countries, it has to include all types of guns- assault rifles, handguns, everything.

You can own a gun in these other countries, if you can prove that you need it for things like protecting your livestock, or for hunting. But those exceptions are extremely limited, and the regulations you have to then go through are very strict.

That's what meaningful gun control that actually works looks like. I don't' believe the assault weapon ban that went into effect in the 90's really did much if anything to lessen gun violence. You have to eliminate hand guns as well.

[moorhosj]

I'd be interested to see evidence of that. I haven't heard of them but maybe I'm just unaware. If there are plenty of them, a couple examples should be easy.

As for it being a racist term, I wouldn't use it myself (which is why I used quotes), but fwiw I believe the person you're arguing with is in fact black. The fundamental distinction I think is violence as a result of real or perceived conflict vs violence as a result of a desire to terrorize.

Drive by in River North - https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022/7/10/23202748/seven-people-shot-downtown-chicago-river-north-violence

This article has a bunch from last week including a mass shooting outside of a nightclub - https://www.yahoo.com/news/staggering-scope-u-gun-deaths-202424402.html

Shooting at the Bean - https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022/5/11/23066960/bean-shooting-michigan

These are all shootings in heavily trafficked pedestrian areas which terrorizes anyone near. But let’s be honest, most other mass shootings aren't “random.” The Buffalo supermarket was specifically chosen, so was the parade, the church in South Carolina, a gay nightclub in Orlando, a school, etc.

The FACT that many suburbanites are crazy scared of people like Crimo but let the daily/weekly stories of gang "mass shootings" go undiscussed (but DEFINITELY not excluded from the statistics they offer on "mass shootings") proves my point. Conflict based violence doesn't freak everyone out unless it's in your neighborhood.

Who let’s it go undiscussed? It dominates local, state, and national media. It is a part of every political platform. Calling something a fact doesn’t make it so, this reads like your feelings not “suburbanites.”

[dice]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

there it is. the 2nd amendment. of course, if the founding fathers intended individual gun rights beyond the part in bold, they never would have included those words to muddy the waters. and that's because they DIDN'T intend individual gun rights beyond what is specifically dictated in the amendment. and so it was left to the individual states to provide additional gun rights if they so chose. constitutional law 101. which is why states across the nation then wrote into THEIR constitutions additional gun rights! because they knew damn well that the US constitution did not provide those protections

and so the 2nd amendment was interpreted AS WRITTEN AND INTENDED for the first 200 years or so of the nation's existence

certain people like our own bojangles wlll try to tap dance around the actual text of the 2nd amendment by flooding the zone with case law from recent decades, which was written by activist right wing judges often funded by the NRA (which does the bidding of gun manufacturers). they'll tell you that you just don't know enough about modern weaponry (neither did the founding fathers). they'll even make outlandish claims that we cannot take reasonable measures to try and prevent the proliferation of mass killings of HUMAN BEINGS nationwide because...maybe there will be a scenario where certain people in certain states might maybe possibly need to mass kill feral hogs

but don't let 'em confuse you. ignore their wholly unoriginal sculpture of propaganda. it's all right there in the text of the 2nd amendment. an amendment that they love to bring up but are loathe to actually cite. and that requires some expert tap dancing. and constructing elaborate frameworks of reality avoidance. same way cults operate. and over the past few decades the issue has been politicized via the culture war such that a sizeable chunk of the population (though a distinct minority) has bought into the propaganda. lock, stock and barrel

you can bet your bottom dollar that this isn't the only website that mr. bojangles has carpet bombed with his accumulation of irrelevant knowledge. because why else accumulate it if not to spray it? not to do so would require admitting to himself that he has wasted an enormous amount of his own time for no legitimate purpose

[Dresden]

Criminality is a symptom of societal failure. Unless you believe some people are just naturally bad...

That sort of eliminates the idea of free will. Some people just make bad choices. Criminals have been around forever. There will always be some small % of people who decide to not follow society's rules.

But on the other hand, there's no doubt that you are correct for a large swath of the criminality- it's mainly economic crime. People join gangs because they have few other choices. You don't see people in Highland Park or Evanston joining gangs.

And then there is crime based on passion- domestic violence, arguments that escalate into violence between friends or strangers. And when there is a gun handy, then it becomes deadly. Much harder to kill someone with a knife or a club than with a gun. If the gun wasn't there, it would save a lot of lives.

[Dresden]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

When I read that, what comes to mind is that they were allowing for a military, to defend the country against England or France or Spain. I don't know what the state of the US Army was at that time, if there even was one. So this amendment allows for militia to bear arms in order to defend the nation against attack from foreign powers. That's my common sense interpretation of it- arms are needed to protect the State, not the individual. And the way to do that is through a well-regulated militia, aka, an army.

Since muskets were common at the time, I doubt the founders would have had any real objection to people owning them- I believe at the time muskets were mainly used to defend against wild animals, or in conflicts with Native Americans. I don't know for a fact, but I highly doubt there was a lot of people murdering each other with muskets or pistols (outside of the occasional duel, which was soon to be outlawed).

But times have changed, and now we have an epidemic of gun violence. I strongly believe that if they could have foreseen what is happening today, they would not have hesitated to add restrictions to individual gun ownership.

[League Circles]

I'd be interested to see evidence of that. I haven't heard of them but maybe I'm just unaware. If there are plenty of them, a couple examples should be easy.

As for it being a racist term, I wouldn't use it myself (which is why I used quotes), but fwiw I believe the person you're arguing with is in fact black. The fundamental distinction I think is violence as a result of real or perceived conflict vs violence as a result of a desire to terrorize.

Drive by in River North - https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022/7/10/23202748/seven-people-shot-downtown-chicago-river-north-violence

This article has a bunch from last week including a mass shooting outside of a nightclub - https://www.yahoo.com/news/staggering-scope-u-gun-deaths-202424402.html

Shooting at the Bean - https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022/5/11/23066960/bean-shooting-michigan

These are all shootings in heavily trafficked pedestrian areas which terrorizes anyone near. But let’s be honest, most other mass shootings aren't “random.” The Buffalo supermarket was specifically chosen, so was the parade, the church in South Carolina, a gay nightclub in Orlando, a school, etc.

The FACT that many suburbanites are crazy scared of people like Crimo but let the daily/weekly stories of gang "mass shootings" go undiscussed (but DEFINITELY not excluded from the statistics they offer on "mass shootings") proves my point. Conflict based violence doesn't freak everyone out unless it's in your neighborhood.

Who let’s it go undiscussed? It dominates local, state, and national media. It is a part of every political platform. Calling something a fact doesn’t make it so, this reads like your feelings not “suburbanites.”

I read the article at the first link. Doesn't say anything about it being random or any motive, because no one is in custody. What was allegedly non-random about the people that Crimo killed at the parade?

Btw, when I say random, I explicitly mean "non-personal", which could either be truly without any apparent motive at all, or a highly impersonal motive such as racism, etc. Something where the specific people shot at do not have any relationship or interaction with the shooter whatsoever.

I can assure you that there are many many millions of people in this country much more concerned about randomly getting shot at a parade than they are concerned about getting shot by drug dealers even though the latter is much much more frequent. The epidemic of crime may be a common topic for various news outlets, but specific non-random mass shootings are hardly given a sliver of the attention of random mass shootings such as the Highland Park parade, even when they kill just as many people.

[League Circles]

How many people here with a strong opinion on the constitutionality of various firearms restrictions have read the federalist papers regarding the development of the amendment? I have not. I probably will at some point. Until then anyone dissecting the text of the actual amendment may be doing so to further their agenda. I for one think it's rather ambiguous without reading further.

If taking literally using today's language I read it as saying that the people have a general right to keep and bear arms and that a description of the reason to maintain that pre-existing right is to have a well-regulated militia. I would know that it does not explicitly guarantee rights to all individuals but rather just to the people. So I think there is room to exclude some individuals such as felons or people with certain background issues or whatever. I also don't think it reads as if being part of the well-regulated militia is the only way the right applies.

[League Circles]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

When I read that, what comes to mind is that they were allowing for a military, to defend the country against England or France or Spain. I don't know what the state of the US Army was at that time, if there even was one. So this amendment allows for militia to bear arms in order to defend the nation against attack from foreign powers. That's my common sense interpretation of it- arms are needed to protect the State, not the individual. And the way to do that is through a well-regulated militia, aka, an army.

Since muskets were common at the time, I doubt the founders would have had any real objection to people owning them- I believe at the time muskets were mainly used to defend against wild animals, or in conflicts with Native Americans. I don't know for a fact, but I highly doubt there was a lot of people murdering each other with muskets or pistols (outside of the occasional duel, which was soon to be outlawed).

But times have changed, and now we have an epidemic of gun violence. I strongly believe that if they could have foreseen what is happening today, they would not have hesitated to add restrictions to individual gun ownership.

It doesn't say that it is to protect the state It says it is to protect the security of a free state. I think that could easily be interpreted as suggesting that a free state where people have liberty to live as they wish is going to have security problems due to the exercise of those freedoms and that a more broad network of potential protections of liberties is necessary that the state itself could never fulfill alone. It also doesn't say anything about foreign powers. It says security. It is also worth noting that the right to keep and bear arms was already established I believe by British common law and also culturally so it wasn't like they were declaring some new right. They were just confirming the right that already existed.