OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

Some of you keep spinning your wheels on banning all guns. You have to be pretty naive to think its even possible. There are also other outcomes you dont account for like how do you keep them out of the bad guys hands, they don’t follow laws. We have ways things can get into the country thats no secret. You may not agree with my opinion that we are so much different a country than others, geographically, racially, culturally, the values we teach or dont teach our children, thats fine. This issue isn’t black and white. So keep screaming for the ban of firearms and you’ll continue to get nowhere with those you need to convince that we at least need changes to improve on this growing trend. Because thats what it has turned into. Its like an extreme tiktok challenge.

[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.

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.

In either case, my reading of it is that what is being protected is the State, or society, and that those arms are to be used for that purpose through the institution of a milita, not as individuals.

Your point about British Common Law allowing the right to bear arms makes sense, and as I said in my post above, I don't see why the Founding Fathers would have been against individual gun ownership. But as I also said, they weren't dealing with mass shootings and 25,000 deaths a year from guns either. So many other modern nations have come to their senses and just about outlawed private gun ownership, that for the US to hide behind some supposed "right" granted 250 years ago seems like it's ignoring present day reality.

[Dresden]

Some of you keep spinning your wheels on banning all guns. You have to be pretty naive to think its even possible. There are also other outcomes you dont account for like how do you keep them out of the bad guys hands, they don’t follow laws. We have ways things can get into the country thats no secret. You may not agree with my opinion that we are so much different a country than others, geographically, racially, culturally, the values we teach or dont teach our children, thats fine. This issue isn’t black and white. So keep screaming for the ban of firearms and you’ll continue to get nowhere when with those you need to convince that we at least need changes to improve on this growing trend. Because thats what it has turned i to. Its like an extreme tiktok challenge.

A lot of things were deemed to be impossible that did come to pass. It's important to understand first, that there is a way out of this madness of gun violence, and that's to eliminate virtually all guns. As many other countries have done, without the loss of any freedom. If you read posts from people from other countries in newspapers or online after another US mass shooting, they are all pretty much the same: "How come you allow this to keep happening? Are you all mad over there? We banned guns after our first mass shooting, and now 90% of the population is glad that we did". Things like that.

So to say that it's not worth considering because it's impossible is a circular argument. Yes, it can happen if people would wake up and realize that's what needs to be done.

It would take awhile, maybe decades, to the guns out of circulation. And yes, there would always be some smuggled in. Happens in other countries that have banned guns too. The Japan PM was killed with a home made gun. But guns would be increasingly hard to get as time went on, even for the bad guys. And many gun deaths are not due to "bad guys". They are from people shooting themselves, or a spouse or a friend, in a moment of anger.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

Some of you keep spinning your wheels on banning all guns. You have to be pretty naive to think its even possible. There are also other outcomes you dont account for like how do you keep them out of the bad guys hands, they don’t follow laws. We have ways things can get into the country thats no secret. You may not agree with my opinion that we are so much different a country than others, geographically, racially, culturally, the values we teach or dont teach our children, thats fine. This issue isn’t black and white. So keep screaming for the ban of firearms and you’ll continue to get nowhere when with those you need to convince that we at least need changes to improve on this growing trend. Because thats what it has turned i to. Its like an extreme tiktok challenge.

A lot of things were deemed to be impossible that did come to pass. It's important to understand first, that there is a way out of this madness of gun violence, and that's to eliminate virtually all guns. As many other countries have done, without the loss of any freedom. If you read posts from people from other countries in newspapers or online after another US mass shooting, they are all pretty much the same: "How come you allow this to keep happening? Are you all mad over there? We banned guns after our first mass shooting, and now 90% of the population is glad that we did". Things like that.

So to say that it's not worth considering because it's impossible is a circular argument. Yes, it can happen if people would wake up and realize that's what needs to be done.

It would take awhile, maybe decades, to the guns out of circulation. And yes, there would always be some smuggled in. Happens in other countries that have banned guns too. The Japan PM was killed with a home made gun. But guns would be increasingly hard to get as time went on, even for the bad guys. And many gun deaths are not due to "bad guys". They are from people shooting themselves, or a spouse or a friend, in a moment of anger.

All itll take is more of the right type of bad guys in these countries. If the trend here is any indication of where the human race is going its only a matter of time. Am i making up some farfetched scenario? Yeah sure but who knows, 100 years from now everything could look different even in the countries with great gun control because well people change and bad people dont follow laws. So a couple hundred years from now when the bad are owning the streets and and we defunded the police are we going to have to fight a political party for us law abiding citizens to be able to protect ourselves? Right now all I see are a bunch of dogs chasing their own tails.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

Oh and if anyone thinks this country has any chance of ever being like Japan for example you need to wake up. Theres no laws that will change the people here enough for us to be Japan 2.0.

The bad are procreating and it’s spreading like the plague. Its gotten to where they dont even know theyre bad, its how they were raised. Itll spread everywhere while we argue about guns and dont get to the roots of the problems.

[dice]

Some of you keep spinning your wheels on banning all guns. You have to be pretty naive to think its even possible. There are also other outcomes you dont account for like how do you keep them out of the bad guys hands, they don’t follow laws. We have ways things can get into the country thats no secret. You may not agree with my opinion that we are so much different a country than others, geographically, racially, culturally, the values we teach or dont teach our children, thats fine. This issue isn’t black and white. So keep screaming for the ban of firearms and you’ll continue to get nowhere with those you need to convince that we at least need changes to improve on this growing trend. Because thats what it has turned into. Its like an extreme tiktok challenge.

it is a minority that doesn't want stricter gun laws. it is a much tinier minority that advocates the banning of all guns. which, as you say, is virtually impossible

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

Some of you keep spinning your wheels on banning all guns. You have to be pretty naive to think its even possible. There are also other outcomes you dont account for like how do you keep them out of the bad guys hands, they don’t follow laws. We have ways things can get into the country thats no secret. You may not agree with my opinion that we are so much different a country than others, geographically, racially, culturally, the values we teach or dont teach our children, thats fine. This issue isn’t black and white. So keep screaming for the ban of firearms and you’ll continue to get nowhere with those you need to convince that we at least need changes to improve on this growing trend. Because thats what it has turned into. Its like an extreme tiktok challenge.

it is a minority that doesn't want stricter gun laws. it is a much tinier minority that advocates the banning of all guns. which, as you say, is virtually impossible

I know that but, go figure, that small minority keeps fighting that fight in this thread. This tiny little thread on the internet that nobody will read.

[Dresden]

Some of you keep spinning your wheels on banning all guns. You have to be pretty naive to think its even possible. There are also other outcomes you dont account for like how do you keep them out of the bad guys hands, they don’t follow laws. We have ways things can get into the country thats no secret. You may not agree with my opinion that we are so much different a country than others, geographically, racially, culturally, the values we teach or dont teach our children, thats fine. This issue isn’t black and white. So keep screaming for the ban of firearms and you’ll continue to get nowhere with those you need to convince that we at least need changes to improve on this growing trend. Because thats what it has turned into. Its like an extreme tiktok challenge.

it is a minority that doesn't want stricter gun laws. it is a much tinier minority that advocates the banning of all guns. which, as you say, is virtually impossible

I know that but, go figure, that small minority keeps fighting that fight in this thread. This tiny little thread on the internet that nobody will read.

I don't know why people can't wake up and smell the coffee. Many other industrialized nations have banned guns and function perfectly fine without them, and don't have the kind of gun violence we do. It's not that hard to understand. It's as if people are willing to do everything but the one thing that will solve the problem. Then we do half way measures, they don't work, and then people say "see? It didn't work".

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

it is a minority that doesn't want stricter gun laws. it is a much tinier minority that advocates the banning of all guns. which, as you say, is virtually impossible

I know that but, go figure, that small minority keeps fighting that fight in this thread. This tiny little thread on the internet that nobody will read.

I don't know why people can't wake up and smell the coffee. Many other industrialized nations have banned guns and function perfectly fine without them, and don't have the kind of gun violence we do. It's not that hard to understand. It's as if people are willing to do everything but the one thing that will solve the problem. Then we do half way measures, they don't work, and then people say "see? It didn't work".

I’ve given my reasons why i dont wake up and smell the coffee on your gun ban suggestion. Youre just either ignoring it or not reading or maybe im just not a good enough communicator, i dunno.

[Dresden]

I should correct what I just said- it's not at all about banning guns. What I mean when I say that is banning the way guns are owned and regulated in the US. Germany also has one of the higher rates of gun ownership in the world, but they suffer about 10% of the gun violence per capita that we do. But it requires about a year to get a gun in Germany, during which you have to pass all kinds of exams, and after several mass shootings in the 00"s, you now have to undergo a pyschiatric exam before owning a gun if you are under 25. Germans love their guns too, and they've found a way to still have them, while not having our level of violence. So it's not an either or choice.

[panthermark]

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.

Sorry, I didn't meant to ignore that part of the post in a dismissive way. That wasn't my intent. I agree whole-heartedly that there are some serious breakdowns in society that get left out of discussion, and that people need to sit down and have frank talks.

As for the shirt, I disagree. Do I think the message is crass and vulgar? Yes. But I agree with the underlying message. The issue could be that the he current atmosphere has led to me having zero F's to give, maybe that is the problem? Attempt to make me a felon based on feelings, tends to harden one a bit. A shirt like that is something I would have never considered a decade ago.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

I should correct what I just said- it's not at all about banning guns. What I mean when I say that is banning the way guns are owned and regulated in the US. Germany also has one of the higher rates of gun ownership in the world, but they suffer about 10% of the gun violence per capita that we do. But it requires about a year to get a gun in Germany, during which you have to pass all kinds of exams, and after several mass shootings in the 00"s, you now have to undergo a pyschiatric exam before owning a gun if you are under 25. Germans love their guns too, and they've found a way to still have them, while not having our level of violence. So it's not an either or choice.

Ok then I guess we aren’t in disagreement with each other. I’m all for strengthening our restrictions even if its longer waiting periods.

Its taken us a couple generations to get to this point we’re at. Unfortunately you are right, it will take generations to gradually fix it. And even longer if we cant learn what the cause or causes of our issue are. We put too much weight into the topic of firearms. Thats my opinion. Theres no arguing right or wrong on that. I have agreed we need to fix some aspects of this. But I want to focus on fixing people. Maybe not just mentally ill. Maybe the youth. Lets figure out how we can educate further and get those that aren’t getting proper education some help. Maybe the poor and homeless or just those in the inner city who dont get the same opportunities as some. We have a ton to fix here. Lets not put all our eggs in the gun basket. Thats all im saying. Im sure most people know this but i think the gun argument is so tired.

[League Circles]

In either case, my reading of it is that what is being protected is the State, or society, and that those arms are to be used for that purpose through the institution of a milita, not as individuals.

I've seen it written that at the time, "militia" referred simply to all able bodied males who could help protect security if needed. I'm fine with that being defined via reasonable regulation. A militia definitely does not need to be essentially a government sanctioned organization, if that's what you're suggesting.

Your point about British Common Law allowing the right to bear arms makes sense, and as I said in my post above, I don't see why the Founding Fathers would have been against individual gun ownership. But as I also said, they weren't dealing with mass shootings and 25,000 deaths a year from guns either. So many other modern nations have come to their senses and just about outlawed private gun ownership, that for the US to hide behind some supposed "right" granted 250 years ago seems like it's ignoring present day reality.

I love the term "modern" or "developed" or "major" or "industrialized" nation, that so many use only when convenient to suggest that we are fundamentally backwards. It often reads as "the EU states that I want the US to be more like". I for one don't presume that more pervasive industrial development and wealth is inherently desirable or superior to more traditional policies and societies.

And it isn't "allowing" and "granting" of these rights, by the British, or Americans, or anyone else. The idea, whether you agree or not, is that the right to defend oneself with arms is a fundamental human right, not needing to be granted or allowed by anyone.

It seems that perhaps you just don't believe in the idea of a constitution (a set of fundamental principles that are to persevere over time and are not nearly as beholden to the current society, but rather are to define the society across time. If you don't believe in it, that's fine, or if you want to change it (as I do in many areas) but are irritated that not enough people apparently agree with you, that's fine too. But just know that the entire purpose of the rights granted in the constitution are that they are to be upheld even when the majority of the people of the moment at any given time want to change them. It's something like the majority (all the people across time in a society) are protected by the special interest minority (the people of the present). It's one of the same reasons we have the senate with the role they have in our electoral college. Sure, NY, FL, TX and CA may dominate today, but in 200 years it's entirely plausible that Wyoming will have more people. And if/when they do, the less populated NY, FL, TX, CA etc will be protected against the tyranny of Wyoming by being overrepresented in the congress. It's all checks and balances.

Nobody needs to hide behind a supposed right. There is a right, and many people want it, and many people don't, but it is reality until further notice. As has been said, it just takes constitutional amendment. A sensibly defined and clarified policy that is improved from the ambiguity we perceive today shouldn't be too hard, despite the NRA lobby. I've never really seen any political leaders suggest a revised amendment or what it would look like. Most (on both sides) just want to cling to their opinion of what they'd like to think it was supposed to mean, and ignore the judicial/constitutional process.

[League Circles]

I should correct what I just said- it's not at all about banning guns. What I mean when I say that is banning the way guns are owned and regulated in the US. Germany also has one of the higher rates of gun ownership in the world, but they suffer about 10% of the gun violence per capita that we do. But it requires about a year to get a gun in Germany, during which you have to pass all kinds of exams, and after several mass shootings in the 00"s, you now have to undergo a pyschiatric exam before owning a gun if you are under 25. Germans love their guns too, and they've found a way to still have them, while not having our level of violence. So it's not an either or choice.

Waiting periods are one of the few areas of potential increased regulation that I really can't get on board with. When a woman's abusive ex husband tells her in a way that she cannot prove that he's gonna kill her, it's a despicable violation of her fundamental human rights to tell her that she can't go buy a revolver to protect herself cause she has to wait a year for psych evals but that that's fine cause she can just call the police if he busts down her door at 3 am one day in a drunken violent rage.

I think on the gun issue, a lot of people just can't seem to ever imagine themselves ever wanting or needing to try to protect themselves, so it's easy to overlook how tyrannical some regulation can be on the most vulnerable in society.

[League Circles]

A lot of things were deemed to be impossible that did come to pass. It's important to understand first, that there is a way out of this madness of gun violence, and that's to eliminate virtually all guns. As many other countries have done, without the loss of any freedom. If you read posts from people from other countries in newspapers or online after another US mass shooting, they are all pretty much the same: "How come you allow this to keep happening? Are you all mad over there? We banned guns after our first mass shooting, and now 90% of the population is glad that we did". Things like that.

So to say that it's not worth considering because it's impossible is a circular argument. Yes, it can happen if people would wake up and realize that's what needs to be done.

It would take awhile, maybe decades, to the guns out of circulation. And yes, there would always be some smuggled in. Happens in other countries that have banned guns too. The Japan PM was killed with a home made gun. But guns would be increasingly hard to get as time went on, even for the bad guys. And many gun deaths are not due to "bad guys". They are from people shooting themselves, or a spouse or a friend, in a moment of anger.

Not having the freedom to defend yourself with a gun IS a loss of freedom. One worth discussing, perhaps, but definitely a loss of freedom. It's just what words mean.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

I should correct what I just said- it's not at all about banning guns. What I mean when I say that is banning the way guns are owned and regulated in the US. Germany also has one of the higher rates of gun ownership in the world, but they suffer about 10% of the gun violence per capita that we do. But it requires about a year to get a gun in Germany, during which you have to pass all kinds of exams, and after several mass shootings in the 00"s, you now have to undergo a pyschiatric exam before owning a gun if you are under 25. Germans love their guns too, and they've found a way to still have them, while not having our level of violence. So it's not an either or choice.

Waiting periods are one of the few areas of potential increased regulation that I really can't get on board with. When a woman's abusive ex husband tells her in a way that she cannot prove that he's gonna kill her, it's a despicable violation of her fundamental human rights to tell her that she can't go buy a revolver to protect herself cause she has to wait a year for psych evals but that that's fine cause she can just call the police if he busts down her door at 3 am one day in a drunken violent rage.

I think on the gun issue, a lot of people just can't seem to ever imagine themselves ever wanting or needing to try to protect themselves, so it's easy to overlook how tyrannical some regulation can be on the most vulnerable in society.

Someone who hasn’t owned a gun prior to now being able to buy one in a hurry to protect themselves from a dangerous person, with minimal to no training, strikes me as a very bad idea. I’m sure it’s worked out in some cases. But does that outweigh the times the gun has been snatched out of an untrained user’s hands and used against them? Or the people who buy guns in a hurry for bad reasons? I doubt it.

[Mbrahv0528]

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.

That's exactly what it is and it's disgusting.

Sent from my SM-F711U using RealGM mobile app

[League Circles]

I should correct what I just said- it's not at all about banning guns. What I mean when I say that is banning the way guns are owned and regulated in the US. Germany also has one of the higher rates of gun ownership in the world, but they suffer about 10% of the gun violence per capita that we do. But it requires about a year to get a gun in Germany, during which you have to pass all kinds of exams, and after several mass shootings in the 00"s, you now have to undergo a pyschiatric exam before owning a gun if you are under 25. Germans love their guns too, and they've found a way to still have them, while not having our level of violence. So it's not an either or choice.

Waiting periods are one of the few areas of potential increased regulation that I really can't get on board with. When a woman's abusive ex husband tells her in a way that she cannot prove that he's gonna kill her, it's a despicable violation of her fundamental human rights to tell her that she can't go buy a revolver to protect herself cause she has to wait a year for psych evals but that that's fine cause she can just call the police if he busts down her door at 3 am one day in a drunken violent rage.

I think on the gun issue, a lot of people just can't seem to ever imagine themselves ever wanting or needing to try to protect themselves, so it's easy to overlook how tyrannical some regulation can be on the most vulnerable in society.

Someone who hasn’t owned a gun prior to now being able to buy one in a hurry to protect themselves from a dangerous person, with minimal to no training, strikes me as a very bad idea. I’m sure it’s worked out in some cases. But does that outweigh the times the gun has been snatched out of an untrained user’s hands and used against them? Or the people who buy guns in a hurry for bad reasons? I doubt it.

Your perspective in entirely valid and warranted, if you value utilitarian benefits over human rights. I seriously mean zero condescension. It's just a different world view. I simply do not believe that it's morally acceptable for the state to prevent that person in need from getting a gun because OTHER people, overall, on average, statistically, will create more bad outcomes than good outcomes from that policy. You're after the best results, which is perfectly reasonable. I am not. I'm OK with whatever results come from a just system of government policies. You want the government to take care of the people in the way a good parent would take care of their child. I don't think that's the role of government, which I pretty much only see as a way to handle disputes civilly.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

Waiting periods are one of the few areas of potential increased regulation that I really can't get on board with. When a woman's abusive ex husband tells her in a way that she cannot prove that he's gonna kill her, it's a despicable violation of her fundamental human rights to tell her that she can't go buy a revolver to protect herself cause she has to wait a year for psych evals but that that's fine cause she can just call the police if he busts down her door at 3 am one day in a drunken violent rage.

I think on the gun issue, a lot of people just can't seem to ever imagine themselves ever wanting or needing to try to protect themselves, so it's easy to overlook how tyrannical some regulation can be on the most vulnerable in society.

Someone who hasn’t owned a gun prior to now being able to buy one in a hurry to protect themselves from a dangerous person, with minimal to no training, strikes me as a very bad idea. I’m sure it’s worked out in some cases. But does that outweigh the times the gun has been snatched out of an untrained user’s hands and used against them? Or the people who buy guns in a hurry for bad reasons? I doubt it.

Your perspective in entirely valid and warranted, if you value utilitarian benefits over human rights. I seriously mean zero condescension. It's just a different world view. I simply do not believe that it's morally acceptable for the state to prevent that person in need from getting a gun because OTHER people, overall, on average, statistically, will create more bad outcomes than good outcomes from that policy. You're after the best results, which is perfectly reasonable. I am not. I'm OK with whatever results come from a just system of government policies. You want the government to take care of the people in the way a good parent would take care of their child. I don't think that's the role of government, which I pretty much only see as a way to handle disputes civilly.

So I understand, the “human right” you’re referencing is that anyone should have access to any gun at any time if they feel they need it to defend themselves?

[panthermark]

The focus has to be on the root of the issues. Focus on WHY people are killing each other, not HOW people are killing each other, because the "HOW" does not solve the root problem.

It is sad that I see insinuated charges of racism when the truth is laid out. Luckily, I'm black, so racisms charges are stupid as hell in this situation, and really highlights the thin skin-ness, unwillingness to accept responsibility, and inability to face information that does not conform to ones own world view in our society today.

As a black man, it is always painful and embarrassing for me to look at, but FBI crime statistics are readily available .
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/publications

You can look through different years and configurations. The latest year with everything easily compiled is 2019.
We (black men) cannot have this over-representation when we are about 7% of the the US population.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls

When I know that suicides, and black on black crime (usually with handguns) account for the vast majority of gun homicides in this country, mass gun regulation proposals seems more like a strategical political approach, than any type of solution based tactical approach.


I fully expect the state of Illinois to use this tragedy as way to push through a state wide AWB. Given the recent SCOTUS decision, it would eventually be deemed Unconstitutional, but that will not stop politicians and those with an agenda from pushing it forward anyway. It will be an infringement while it it works it way through the courts.

Nevermind that Cook County has an AWB on the books.
Nevermind that the City of Chicago has an AWB on the books.
Nevermind that Highland Park, where the event actually happened, has an AWB on the books.
Nevermind that Deerfield has and AWB on the books.
Nevermind that Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation already.
Nevermind that the shooter had attempted suicide TWICE, had threatened to kill his family, had made music, art, and videos about school shootings and violence, and should been deemed a danger to himself and others....thus he never been anywhere near firearms in the first place. (Pretty much every possible red flat and warning sign in the book was missed, but the answer is more gun laws somehow)
Nevermind that it has no impact on suicides.
Nevermind that it has very little impact on inner-city violence (where bans already exist and gun laws are already ignored).

In my opinion, it is an emotional (not logical) response being manipulated for political purposes.