OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

Just because you’re Black doesn’t mean you aren’t parroting racist tropes. Candace Owens, Herschel Walker, and others have made a living of it.

[League Circles]

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?

Not exactly. Like many other human rights, we're in a difficult position of having to violate that right in certain cases for no other reason than we feel like we have to and have the force (government) to be able to do so. The essence of government is, IMO, the immoral but necessary exertion of force against individuals to maintain stability, safety and predictability for society overall. Same reason we can and do violation the human right to freedom of speech in some circumstances.

I don't expect you or anyone else to remember my special personal beliefs on what we should do from a policy standpoint, but I have made a number of comments in this thread on how I do not believe that the constitution guarantees the ability for every single individual to own a gun, and I am in favor of some increased regulation of various aspects of firearms in our society. However, I do think it's a fundamental human right to be able to protect yourself, and I think we should be very careful on when we take away that right, so as to minimize the restrictions on the legal freedom to exercise that human right. I don't think Crimo should have been allowed to buy guns, for example. I just think mandatory default waiting periods are over the line, but there are numerous other aspects of increased regulation I'd be OK with, as long as they are constitutional (or if the constitution is changed by the lawful methods).

[League Circles]

Just because you’re Black doesn’t mean you aren’t parroting racist tropes. Candace Owens, Herschel Walker, and others have made a living of it.

This is a true statement, but my perspective is that it does earn one a more extensive benefit of the doubt, and there are many areas of life where good, true things are said for bad reasons (by some). I try not to speculate on motives for speech in others, but rather on the content.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

LP, what guides your willingness to violate the rights you’ve described above? Is it just based on gut? Because your reasons for keeping a gun out of Crimo’s hands are utilitarian. Someone with his psych profile and background may have a credible and urgent need to protect themselves. But it’s not a good idea to sell him one because, on the whole, guns are often dangerous in the hands of people with his background.

Similarly, someone with no experience with guns may believe they have a need to shoot someone in self defense tomorrow. But, across society, handing an untrained shooter a gun under duress is a bad idea.

I want to understand what informs these decisions for you since stats don’t come into play.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

Just because you’re Black doesn’t mean you aren’t parroting racist tropes. Candace Owens, Herschel Walker, and others have made a living of it.

This is a true statement, but my perspective is that it does earn one a more extensive benefit of the doubt, and there are many areas of life where good, true things are said for bad reasons (by some). I try not to speculate on motives for speech in others, but rather on the content.

Yep, lived experience deserves some benefit of the doubt. There are limits to that, however.

[panthermark]

Just because you’re Black doesn’t mean you aren’t parroting racist tropes. Candace Owens, Herschel Walker, and others have made a living of it.

Have a said a single thing that is untrue and/or not backed up by unbias sources?
Not everything is racist, and you can't blame everything on racism in order to avoid seeing the truth. Sometimes the truth is ugly.

Those murder numbers came directly from the FBI statistics website and you can break them down by individual age.

You can go to Giffords (Pretty much the same as Everytown and MomsDemandAction as far as gun regulation sites go).
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-violence-statistics/
58.8% of gun deaths are suicide
37.8% of gun deaths are homicide (what about those FBI statistics again?)

Is anything here factually incorrect in any way, shape, or form?
All I am saying is that if you are going to address gun violence, look at the actual sources before you attempt a blanket ban.

[Dresden]

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.

I don't think you need a constitutional amendent- just the same types of regulations you have in many other countries like Germany, Switzerland, or Japan.

Also:

militia: military organization of citizens with limited military training, which is available for emergency service, usually for local defense. (Encyc. Britannica)

Definition of militia:
1a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
The militia was called to quell the riot.
b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
3: a private group of armed individuals that operates as a paramilitary force and is typically motivated by a political or religious ideology. (Merriam Webster)

All of these meanings have to do with service to the govt., or organized by the govt., except #3- rebel groups.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

Just because you’re Black doesn’t mean you aren’t parroting racist tropes. Candace Owens, Herschel Walker, and others have made a living of it.

Have a said a single thing that is untrue and/or not backed up by unbias sources?
Not everything is racist, and you can't blame everything on racism in order to avoid seeing the truth. Sometimes the truth is ugly.

Those murder numbers came directly from the FBI statistics website and you can break them down by individual age.

You can go to Giffords (Pretty much the same as Everytown and MomsDemandAction as far as gun regulation sites go).
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-violence-statistics/
58.8% of gun deaths are suicide
37.8% of gun deaths are homicide (what about those FBI statistics again?)

Is anything here factually incorrect in any way, shape, or form?
All I am saying is that if you are going to address gun violence, look at the actual sources before you attempt a blanket ban.

You’ve stripped away so much context about the nature of poverty, violence, segregation and gun access in Chicago - and done it with a tone that’s mocking of black youth (“fo-tay”) - that I don’t know where to start.

I may circle back with you when I have more time. But for now, please understand that being Black doesn’t mean you aren’t advancing racist talking points.

[League Circles]

LP, what guides your willingness to violate the rights you’ve described above? Is it just based on gut? Because your reasons for keeping a gun out of Crimo’s hands are utilitarian. Someone with his psych profile and background may have a credible and urgent need to protect themselves. But it’s not a good idea to sell him one because, on the whole, guns are often dangerous in the hands of people with his background.

Similarly, someone with no experience with guns may believe they have a need to shoot someone in self defense tomorrow. But, across society, handing an untrained shooter a gun under duress is a bad idea.

I want to understand what informs these decisions for you since stats don’t come into play.

You're entirely right in wondering where/how I draw the line. And it is in fact somewhat arbitrary. But I'll try to elaborate.

Crimo, IMO, should have been arrested previously for threatening to kill everyone (as reported/complained by a "relative" - probably one of his parents). As I understand it, the cops felt limited to arrest him at that time because, as often happens, whoever made the initial complaint and called the cops would not stand by their initial statement. I would like to see that kind of policy changed. I don't think people should essentially be able to retract claims made on the record to officials (including 911 calls). I'm always disgusted by the idea that "well, we couldn't arrest this person because another person wouldn't agree to testify or "press charges".

Once a criminal act has been alleged, or seen in public, I think it should be out of the hands of the person who initially reported it. I understand them backtracking may make convictions more difficult, but I still think LE should proceed with them. An example would be that Will Smith should have been arrested for battery in his seat at the Oscars regardless of what Chris Rock thought. Same with Malice in the Palice, millions of victims of domestic abuse, etc.

I do not believe that the sole act of once considering committing or attempting suicide should prevent someone from being allowed to buy a gun. Though if there's a way to consider his sinister online foresahdowed imagery, that would also be a reason to prevent him from buying a gun. Basically, Crimo had plenty of chances to live in a way that could convince society to protect his rights, but he didn't. To me, that's the difference.

If he hadn't threatened to kill everyone, maybe the best gun for Crimo if he had needed self defense would have been a Derringer or over-under shotgun (2 round capacity). Or maybe he should have been allowed a pistol. I don't know all the details. But once you threaten to "kill everyone", you should be arrested and preventing from layfully owning a gun, even if Mommy or Daddy has second thoughts after their 911 call. Their 911 call should be state's evidence and Mommy or Daddy should be called to testify if they want to lie under oath and take it back, and the jury can decide.

[League Circles]

I don't think you need a constitutional amendent- just the same types of regulations you have in many other countries like Germany, Switzerland, or Japan.

Not sure exactly which regulations you're referring to, but off the top of my head I'd guess a number of them would be unconstitutional. Making anyone who wants one wait a year for a gun is IMO certainly infringing on the right of the people (as opposed to limited individuals) to keep and bear arms (for a year).

Also:

militia: military organization of citizens with limited military training, which is available for emergency service, usually for local defense. (Encyc. Britannica)

Definition of militia:
1a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
The militia was called to quell the riot.
b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
3: a private group of armed individuals that operates as a paramilitary force and is typically motivated by a political or religious ideology. (Merriam Webster)

All of these meanings have to do with service to the govt., or organized by the govt., except #3- rebel groups.

The bold, to me, just means that "if we can draft you, then you have the right to a gun". Which makes sense, as it's rather immoral to compel (force) a person to protect the nation while not allowing them to protect themselves.

[Almost Retired]

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?

It's not only a human right but after Bruen it is also a Constitutional right. Americans have always had a right to use firearms to protect themselves within their homes. It's a common law right going back many centuries, back to England. The Bruen decision says it all: "We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a hand gun for self defense outside the home." Under the Constitution we have the GOD GIVEN right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. These rights do no derive from Government and cannot be curtailed by government. And if I have the right to Life I must then also have the right to defend my life from people who may wish to do me harm. Feel free to chip away at the margins. Smaller gun magazines. Bump stocks. But guns are not going away. There are an estimated 400 Million Firearms in America. Responsible owners are not going to turn their gun in because some politicians, who currently have lower popularity then head lice, tell them they need to give up their security for the protection of "society". Never going to happen.

[panthermark]

Just because you’re Black doesn’t mean you aren’t parroting racist tropes. Candace Owens, Herschel Walker, and others have made a living of it.

Have a said a single thing that is untrue and/or not backed up by unbias sources?
Not everything is racist, and you can't blame everything on racism in order to avoid seeing the truth. Sometimes the truth is ugly.

Those murder numbers came directly from the FBI statistics website and you can break them down by individual age.

You can go to Giffords (Pretty much the same as Everytown and MomsDemandAction as far as gun regulation sites go).
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-violence-statistics/
58.8% of gun deaths are suicide
37.8% of gun deaths are homicide (what about those FBI statistics again?)

Is anything here factually incorrect in any way, shape, or form?
All I am saying is that if you are going to address gun violence, look at the actual sources before you attempt a blanket ban.

You’ve stripped away so much context about the nature of poverty, violence, segregation and gun access in Chicago - and done it with a tone that’s mocking of black youth (“fo-tay”) - that I don’t know where to start.

I may circle back with you when I have more time. But for now, please understand that being Black doesn’t mean you aren’t advancing racist talking points.

Please tell me how poverty, violence, segregation and access to guns will be impact by anything proposed here? How does an AWB, or somehow attempting to restrict semi-automatic weapons for everyone improve this, when it isn't the core problem? Being that there are so many laws already being broke in terms of gun ownership (given all the laws for Illinois and Chicago), what are you actually trying to accomplish?

And yes, I'm going to mock the person (illegal gun owner flashing gang signs and pointing guns at a camera for a selfie) that is this issue (from a homicide standpoint) while you try to superimpose that problem on to me (lawful gun owner).

I get what you are saying, but you please understand that WE can't blame everything on racism in order to avoid unpleasant truths.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

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?

It's not only a human right but after Bruen it is also a Constitutional right. Americans have always had a right to use firearms to protect themselves within their homes. It's a common law right going back many centuries, back to England. The Bruen decision says it all: "We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a hand gun for self defense outside the home." Under the Constitution we have the GOD GIVEN right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. These rights do no derive from Government and cannot be curtailed by government. And if I have the right to Life I must then also have the right to defend my life from people who may wish to do me harm. Feel free to chip away at the margins. Smaller gun magazines. Bump stocks. But guns are not going away. There are an estimated 400 Million Firearms in America. Responsible owners are not going to turn their gun in because some politicians, who currently have lower popularity then head lice, tell them they need to give up their security for the protection of "society". Never going to happen.

That isn’t the discussion LP and I were having at all.

[Michael Jackson]

Going back to columbine the discussion hasn't changed IMHO. I think that we need stronger gun laws not banning of all guns but stronger laws. I also think that mental health isn't a fall back right wing issue it is a real dam thing that neither side wants to dress because it is too large to address. We can spend pages beyond pages discussing if an assault riffle is this or that. We can argue about the 2nd amendment. All are valid. We can ignore the violence in the place I live and call anything around it racist. perhaps though I am the crazy one. There is no discourse though just the same old stuff being talked abut back and forth.

[Wingy]

I’m generally in favor of stricter laws, required background checks, required training, longer waiting periods, etc.

One thing I haven’t seen discussed much anywhere that seems within our reach is much, much greater use of technology.

- Design some system such that only the registered owner can fire the weapon. Trying to hack around this security essentially compromises and breaks it. The tech is already in our stupid phones. Make it better and at least apply it to guns that present greater potential risk (eg - semis, or anything with a clip). If we figured this out, one of the biggest problems of law-breaking citizens acquiring weapons is significantly mitigated. Getting one of these also gets you needing to go through all the various background checks, waiting, etc.

- Owners need to be held responsible for the security of their guns. That means safes should become standard and required. Govt grants and loans should be made available for any lower income folks that can’t easily afford this type of measure.

- Perhaps add some type of geo-locator within a gun that alerts authorities when an unauthorized weapon is coming too close to a sensitive location (eg - schools, govt buildings)

- Current-style non-tech guns would need to go by the wayside. Create a program to trade them in for a modern equivalent. Or outright buy them. Any few remaining would have to be registered (owner would need to get through a lot of checks, etc), and subject to high taxation. Anyone in possession illegally would face draconian punishment (life in prison?).

These ideas are surely imperfect, but if we wanted to set our minds to it, especially on the tech solutions, I think it’s certainly attainable. We have self-driving cars, send crap out to Mars, have greater tech all the time. Yes, it would cost, but the current issues are costing us more than plenty as is. If you coldly set aside priceless life, look at all the time wasted debating about this topic. Countless hours of people debating on the internet instead of getting their work done for their company, or spending their money on some leisure activity.

[League Circles]

I’m generally in favor of stricter laws, required background checks, required training, longer waiting periods, etc.

One thing I haven’t seen discussed much anywhere that seems within our reach is much, much greater use of technology.

- Design some system such that only the registered owner can fire the weapon. Trying to hack around this security essentially compromises and breaks it. The tech is already in our stupid phones. Make it better and at least apply it to guns that present greater potential risk (eg - semis, or anything with a clip). If we figured this out, one of the biggest problems of law-breaking citizens acquiring weapons is significantly mitigated. Getting one of these also gets you needing to go through all the various background checks, waiting, etc.

- Owners need to be held responsible for the security of their guns. That means safes should become standard and required. Govt grants and loans should be made available for any lower income folks that can’t easily afford this type of measure.

- Perhaps add some type of geo-locator within a gun that alerts authorities when an unauthorized weapon is coming too close to a sensitive location (eg - schools, govt buildings)

- Current-style non-tech guns would need to go by the wayside. Create a program to trade them in for a modern equivalent. Or outright buy them. Any few remaining would have to be registered (owner would need to get through a lot of checks, etc), and subject to high taxation. Anyone in possession illegally would face draconian punishment (life in prison?).

These ideas are surely imperfect, but if we wanted to set our minds to it, especially on the tech solutions, I think it’s certainly attainable. We have self-driving cars, send crap out to Mars, have greater tech all the time. Yes, it would cost, but the current issues are costing us more than plenty as is. If you coldly set aside priceless life, look at all the time wasted debating about this topic. Countless hours of people debating on the internet instead of getting their work done for their company, or spending their money on some leisure activity.

I don't necessarily agree with all of these things but generally they are some good ideas and overall your identification of failing to embrace and utilize technology is a very key point not just on this issue but many others especially including voting and districting technology. It really bugs me. I think most politicians are very tech-ignorant.

[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.

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.

In Germany, you are not allowed to use a gun for self defense. I don't know how the law works exactly, but that is not one of the reasons for owning a gun. maybe they have better laws around domestic violence or something. Or maybe they realize that having a gun in the house for whatever reason just makes it more likely that it will be used on a loved one.

[Dresden]

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.

By the same token then, being afraid to go to a 4th of July parade because you are afraid of being shot is also a loss of freedom. So it's a trade off. One freedom for another.

[Dresden]

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 does though. If you take away the easiest and most effective means of killing, you will reduce the killings, regardless of what the motivations for the killing were. This is why there are also talks on reducing the possession and development of nuclear weapons. It's much easier to do that than to eliminate the reasons why nations go to war. And if a war does break out, it won't be the end of the human race. Just like if a fight breaks out between two parties, if neither has a gun, there is a much lower risk someone ends up dead.

[Jstock12]

What a tragedy. People are going to become afraid to go to any kind of mass public event pretty soon.

Definition of terrorism