OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[Dresden]

If there was any confusion of my point, I would pump money into both mental health and community enrichment before trying to remove guns. My #1 issue is income inequality in our country, if I could solve one problem, it would be that one, because I think most other problems are considerably lessoned if you solve it.

I agree with this 1,000%. If that problem were solved, or lessened, many other problems would go away as well. The same with with housing- our govt. has kept funding of public housing at the same levels (in actual dollars, not adjusted dollars) for about the past 40 years. As a result, housing is unaffordable for many people. Reagan thought the private market could do a better job than the govt. in providing housing, and we see the results. Meanwhile, public housing in places like UK and France is a much higher % of the total housing stock than here, and they have no where near the homeless problems we do.

So yes, reverse the tax cuts for the rich that have taken place over the last 50 years, build more housing, provide health care for everyone, level the playing field for unions by doing a better job of cracking down on union busting tactics- all these things would help reduce violence.

OTH, even if it cost a trillion dollars to get rid of guns, as I pointed out above, that would be a wise investment, as we currently spend about 280 billion a year on gun violence. So there's not reason we shouldn't do all of these things. We could drastically cut down our military spending to pay for it, along with fairly taxing the rich.

[MrSparkle]

Income equality is an existential issue at this point. We're kind of in an oligarchy. The difference is we have the largest GDP, so there's enough money for everybody to think they live comfortably, except globalization is running its course, so cheap imports aren't so cheap anymore. A few power players have more money than most the population, and more political influence than the popular voters, and a minority representation with the way our electoral votes, Senate seats, SCOTUS appointments and gerry-mandering have gone -- let's be honest, it's just going to get worse for the middle class.

Conservatives want to reduce wealthy taxation (which reduces public funding). Further deregulate corporations and big equity (which concentrates more monopolies). Privatize education and much of public infrastructure (which coupled with monopoly and reduced public funding, would not give fair opportunities to a majority of the population that can't afford the good stuff).

Furthermore, by banning abortions, single mothers in poverty are thrown into a deeper poverty cycle. By enabling more guns, of course there will be more violence and gun use in poor areas. Also, police will be less inclined to take on crime if everyone's armed. The argument that "gun laws don't matter because criminals will get guns if they want guns" is complete nonsense. If something's illegal, then less people are going to be able to obtain it.

On top of it, they want to ban stem cell research, remove funding for exploratory research in general, and further deregulate the pharmaceutical industries.

There are no perfect solutions, but those are dystopian solutions right there.

But alas, income inequality is irrelevant to this thread... since the killer was a dude who probably never worried about paying a bill in his life. Son to affluent HP parents.

[dougthonus]

IDK. I understand your point. And I agree. But what is a rational fear?

Traffic deaths in 2021 in USA... about 43,000. Gun deaths about 45,000.

So you can break it down and compare mass shootings to all traffic deaths. But that seems like apples and oranges to me. There are all kinds of traffic deaths. There are all kinds of gun deaths. In general, about the same number of people get killed in car crashes as die by gunfire in this country. Slightly more by gunfire.

When you consider how much Americans drive, that stat alone should cause some rational belief in a need to control what is happening with guns.

Of those gun deaths, probably 75% of them I avoid by simply choosing not to own a gun and almost the entire amount of what is left I can avoid by not living in / being in certain areas. So my practical risk is so close to zero that it is effectively zero.

If we want to ignore that though, and say that those things aren't situational at all, then I would tell you I'm also not scared of driving, and so something that had an equivalent chance of killing me as driving is not something I'm fearful of, but again, a gun death has a dramatically less chance of killing me because I can control 99% of the circumstances that would cause me to get killed by a gun. For the people who can't control all of those circumstances because they are tied to an area where gun violence is prevalent and do not have the economic power to leave, I noted above, that I would look to solve that problem through economic revitalization rather than worrying about guns.

[Almost Retired]

IDK. I understand your point. And I agree. But what is a rational fear?

Traffic deaths in 2021 in USA... about 43,000. Gun deaths about 45,000.

So you can break it down and compare mass shootings to all traffic deaths. But that seems like apples and oranges to me. There are all kinds of traffic deaths. There are all kinds of gun deaths. In general, about the same number of people get killed in car crashes as die by gunfire in this country. Slightly more by gunfire.

When you consider how much Americans drive, that stat alone should cause some rational belief in a need to control what is happening with guns.

Of those gun deaths, probably 75% of them I avoid by simply choosing not to own a gun and almost the entire amount of what is left I can avoid by not living in / being in certain areas. So my practical risk is so close to zero that it is effectively zero.

If we want to ignore that though, and say that those things aren't situational at all, then I would tell you I'm also not scared of driving, and so something that had an equivalent chance of killing me as driving is not something I'm fearful of, but again, a gun death has a dramatically less chance of killing me because I can control 99% of the circumstances that would cause me to get killed by a gun. For the people who can't control all of those circumstances because they are tied to an area where gun violence is prevalent and do not have the economic power to leave, I noted above, that I would look to solve that problem through economic revitalization rather than worrying about guns.

For a while we used to live in Portland, Oregon, which used to be a nice, friendly city until Antifa made it one of it's center and they elected one of those soft on crime-forget the victim prosecutors. The boarded up windows in the downtown business district testify to what a **** hole Portland has become. On June 25th two elderly gentlemen (one was 82, the other was 88) were at a bus stop in downtown Portland. A young white male, a piece of human debris, assaulted both of them, knocked them to the ground and stomped on them without provocation. They both ended up in ICU and one of them died a week or so later. Had a law abiding concealed carry permit holder been present or very close by they could have stopped this goon from killing or maiming 2 innocent men. I know that had I been present I would have put two high velocity hollow points into his center mass and made him explode. I would have possibly rescued the men and done the world a favor in the process. Neighborhood revitalization would not have saved these men. But a gun in the hands of a person trained to shoot it might have.

I don't believe for a second that crime rates are down. There are so many soft on crime prosecutors these days and they plea serious crimes down to misdemeanors or decline to prosecute them at all. Scan the online news for the top 20 cities in America by population. See all the stories of the senseless mayhem going on all around. It's pervasive and it's getting worse. If the criminal justice system is so overwhelmed or incompetent to protect us from all the human scum in this country then sensible people are wise to protect themselves, their loved ones and their communities with any means at their disposal. For me that is packing a concealed handgun loaded with high velocity hollow points. If you feel that you have no need to do so I have no quarrel with that. You live in the suburbs and seldom frequent dangerous areas. I sincerely hope you never have to live through a home invasion, or have a burglar prowling in your house at 3 AM. But for millions and millions of law abiding citizens in this country having a firearm in their houses and on their person when out and about is an understandable response to the senseless violence that happens all too frequently in America. And it's going to get worse as the economy continues to deteriorate and more people start going hungry. Because that's coming. Car loan defaults are rising rapidly. That's often a canary in the coal mine indicating a slow down in the economy. Home loan defaults are next. Then foreclosures and short sales, and evictions for non payment of rent. It's all coming. Desperate people can resort to desperate measures. But not in my house.

[kyrv]

...

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

...

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

[Dresden]

Violent crime in the US is down from a peak of around 750 per 100,000 in 1991 to around 400 per 100,000 in 2020. Statistics per the FBI: https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

[moorhosj]

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

Are you under the impression that we only count crimes that are prosecuted? If that were true, Chicago could easily have 0 murders a year.

Based on the data we have, crime in cities is not a political problem. There are plenty of Republican cities in Republican states that have huge crime issues right now (Jacksonville, Miami, Ft Worth, Oklahoma City).

Are all of their prosecutors soft? Do their elected legislators and mayors bear responsibility? Perhaps if we pause the “blame the other guy” tactic for a moment, we could make improvements to quality-of-life.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/24/fact-check-linking-city-violence-democratic-politics-reach/3248102001/

[Guru]

IDK. I understand your point. And I agree. But what is a rational fear?

Traffic deaths in 2021 in USA... about 43,000. Gun deaths about 45,000.

So you can break it down and compare mass shootings to all traffic deaths. But that seems like apples and oranges to me. There are all kinds of traffic deaths. There are all kinds of gun deaths. In general, about the same number of people get killed in car crashes as die by gunfire in this country. Slightly more by gunfire.

When you consider how much Americans drive, that stat alone should cause some rational belief in a need to control what is happening with guns.

Of those gun deaths, probably 75% of them I avoid by simply choosing not to own a gun and almost the entire amount of what is left I can avoid by not living in / being in certain areas. So my practical risk is so close to zero that it is effectively zero.

If we want to ignore that though, and say that those things aren't situational at all, then I would tell you I'm also not scared of driving, and so something that had an equivalent chance of killing me as driving is not something I'm fearful of, but again, a gun death has a dramatically less chance of killing me because I can control 99% of the circumstances that would cause me to get killed by a gun. For the people who can't control all of those circumstances because they are tied to an area where gun violence is prevalent and do not have the economic power to leave, I noted above, that I would look to solve that problem through economic revitalization rather than worrying about guns.

For a while we used to live in Portland, Oregon, which used to be a nice, friendly city until Antifa made it one of it's center and they elected one of those soft on crime-forget the victim prosecutors. The boarded up windows in the downtown business district testify to what a **** hole Portland has become. On June 25th two elderly gentlemen (one was 82, the other was 88) were at a bus stop in downtown Portland. A young white male, a piece of human debris, assaulted both of them, knocked them to the ground and stomped on them without provocation. They both ended up in ICU and one of them died a week or so later. Had a law abiding concealed carry permit holder been present or very close by they could have stopped this goon from killing or maiming 2 innocent men. I know that had I been present I would have put two high velocity hollow points into his center mass and made him explode. I would have possibly rescued the men and done the world a favor in the process. Neighborhood revitalization would not have saved these men. But a gun in the hands of a person trained to shoot it might have.

I don't believe for a second that crime rates are down. There are so many soft on crime prosecutors these days and they plea serious crimes down to misdemeanors or decline to prosecute them at all. Scan the online news for the top 20 cities in America by population. See all the stories of the senseless mayhem going on all around. It's pervasive and it's getting worse. If the criminal justice system is so overwhelmed or incompetent to protect us from all the human scum in this country then sensible people are wise to protect themselves, their loved ones and their communities with any means at their disposal. For me that is packing a concealed handgun loaded with high velocity hollow points. If you feel that you have no need to do so I have no quarrel with that. You live in the suburbs and seldom frequent dangerous areas. I sincerely hope you never have to live through a home invasion, or have a burglar prowling in your house at 3 AM. But for millions and millions of law abiding citizens in this country having a firearm in their houses and on their person when out and about is an understandable response to the senseless violence that happens all too frequently in America. And it's going to get worse as the economy continues to deteriorate and more people start going hungry. Because that's coming. Car loan defaults are rising rapidly. That's often a canary in the coal mine indicating a slow down in the economy. Home loan defaults are next. Then foreclosures and short sales, and evictions for non payment of rent. It's all coming. Desperate people can resort to desperate measures. But not in my house.

Everyone else thinks this is probably a guy who shouldn't have guns right?

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

Of those gun deaths, probably 75% of them I avoid by simply choosing not to own a gun and almost the entire amount of what is left I can avoid by not living in / being in certain areas. So my practical risk is so close to zero that it is effectively zero.

If we want to ignore that though, and say that those things aren't situational at all, then I would tell you I'm also not scared of driving, and so something that had an equivalent chance of killing me as driving is not something I'm fearful of, but again, a gun death has a dramatically less chance of killing me because I can control 99% of the circumstances that would cause me to get killed by a gun. For the people who can't control all of those circumstances because they are tied to an area where gun violence is prevalent and do not have the economic power to leave, I noted above, that I would look to solve that problem through economic revitalization rather than worrying about guns.

For a while we used to live in Portland, Oregon, which used to be a nice, friendly city until Antifa made it one of it's center and they elected one of those soft on crime-forget the victim prosecutors. The boarded up windows in the downtown business district testify to what a **** hole Portland has become. On June 25th two elderly gentlemen (one was 82, the other was 88) were at a bus stop in downtown Portland. A young white male, a piece of human debris, assaulted both of them, knocked them to the ground and stomped on them without provocation. They both ended up in ICU and one of them died a week or so later. Had a law abiding concealed carry permit holder been present or very close by they could have stopped this goon from killing or maiming 2 innocent men. I know that had I been present I would have put two high velocity hollow points into his center mass and made him explode. I would have possibly rescued the men and done the world a favor in the process. Neighborhood revitalization would not have saved these men. But a gun in the hands of a person trained to shoot it might have.

I don't believe for a second that crime rates are down. There are so many soft on crime prosecutors these days and they plea serious crimes down to misdemeanors or decline to prosecute them at all. Scan the online news for the top 20 cities in America by population. See all the stories of the senseless mayhem going on all around. It's pervasive and it's getting worse. If the criminal justice system is so overwhelmed or incompetent to protect us from all the human scum in this country then sensible people are wise to protect themselves, their loved ones and their communities with any means at their disposal. For me that is packing a concealed handgun loaded with high velocity hollow points. If you feel that you have no need to do so I have no quarrel with that. You live in the suburbs and seldom frequent dangerous areas. I sincerely hope you never have to live through a home invasion, or have a burglar prowling in your house at 3 AM. But for millions and millions of law abiding citizens in this country having a firearm in their houses and on their person when out and about is an understandable response to the senseless violence that happens all too frequently in America. And it's going to get worse as the economy continues to deteriorate and more people start going hungry. Because that's coming. Car loan defaults are rising rapidly. That's often a canary in the coal mine indicating a slow down in the economy. Home loan defaults are next. Then foreclosures and short sales, and evictions for non payment of rent. It's all coming. Desperate people can resort to desperate measures. But not in my house.

Everyone else thinks this is probably a guy who shouldn't have guns right?

This is not necessary, come on. Lets just have a good back and forth without getting personal.

Forget the stats, for me crime definitely isn't down, its on the rise actually. Thats my opinion based on what I see and hear. No point in arguing my opinion. And it probably depends on where you live but out here in southern ca/ LA metro area I don't feel nearly as safe as I once did. Lots of homeless and shady people just roaming at night. If those stats only count the crimes of those that are caught then ok I believe that. There's so much that criminals are getting away with right now. I used to not worry about leaving my windows open at night. Now there's no way in hell. But just go do some searches on youtube. Plenty of crime caught on video. And home invasions that are just disturbing to me. I don't care what the stats say, this crap is happening out there, more or less does not matter to me, its happening.

[dougthonus]

This is not necessary, come on. Lets just have a good back and forth without getting personal.

Someone who is excited about being a vigilante is a valid concern worth discussing about gun ownership.

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

If your opinion is "i believe all data is false and i know better based on what I see and hear", then that is fine, I agree no one will change your opinion, but you realize by saying "I don't care about facts, I only care about anecdotal things" that your opinion will generally not carry much weight either.

And home invasions that are just disturbing to me. I don't care what the stats say, this crap is happening out there, more or less does not matter to me, its happening.

Certainly if crime is more real near you based on where you live that should show up in very localized stats, but may not be as readily available, but it's worth considering your experience then may not be the same as others.

[_txchilibowl_]

Replace the word "stats" with "facts".... you don't feel it's an issue when we disregard facts?

My mom believes the world is flat. It's her own personal experience. Facts be damned.

[moorhosj]

I don't care what the stats say, this crap is happening out there, more or less does not matter to me, its happening.

This is the Newt Gingrich method from 2016: It doesn’t matter what the data says, it matters how I feel. It’s a sign that the topic has become entirely emotional and logic is out the window. We see this with facts on how guns in your house do not make you safer. It increases the risks of both homicide AND suicide. https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/

We can show the data, but you’ve already acknowledged it doesn’t matter to you. What’s the path to a positive back-and-forth if we refuse to agree on the basic facts?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/08/05/newt-gingrich-exemplifies-just-how-unscientific-america-is/?sh=35cbeec25e47

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

This is not necessary, come on. Lets just have a good back and forth without getting personal.

Someone who is excited about being a vigilante is a valid concern worth discussing about gun ownership.

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

If your opinion is "i believe all data is false and i know better based on what I see and hear", then that is fine, I agree no one will change your opinion, but you realize by saying "I don't care about facts, I only care about anecdotal things" that your opinion will generally not carry much weight either.

And home invasions that are just disturbing to me. I don't care what the stats say, this crap is happening out there, more or less does not matter to me, its happening.

Certainly if crime is more real near you based on where you live that should show up in very localized stats, but may not be as readily available, but it's worth considering your experience then may not be the same as others.

I don't think we need to get personal here.

And um wow, talk about putting words in my mouth. Well for one I do believe in facts. Facts. Not everything you look up on the internet is real. Not everything you view on the news is as it appears. I also think stats can be skewed. There's a lot that stats don't account for. But I don't want to argue about how stats aren't always the facts. I just want to give my point of view that crime is not going down where I am and its the truth from what I'm seeing and how people are living now compared to in the past. Some people can just look at stats and feel safe then ok thats fine with me but thats not me. Regardless though if the crime is going up or down, I've seen enough things to make me want to protect my home and family. I don't need people googling stats to tell me otherwise.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

I don't care what the stats say, this crap is happening out there, more or less does not matter to me, its happening.

This is the Newt Gingrich method from 2016: It doesn’t matter what the data says, it matters how I feel. It’s a sign that the topic has become entirely emotional and logic is out the window. We see this with facts on how guns in your house do not make you safer. It increases the risks of both homicide AND suicide. https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/

We can show the data, but you’ve already acknowledged it doesn’t matter to you. What’s the path to a positive back-and-forth if we refuse to agree on the basic facts?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/08/05/newt-gingrich-exemplifies-just-how-unscientific-america-is/?sh=35cbeec25e47

No its not just about how I feel, its what I have seen and see here in the streets at night. Its enough data for me to make the decision that I need to protect my household. Like I said I don't want to argue about stats.

[dougthonus]

I don't think we need to get personal here.

And um wow, talk about putting words in my mouth. Well for one I do believe in facts. Facts. Not everything you look up on the internet is real. Not everything you view on the news is as it appears. I also think stats can be skewed. There's a lot that stats don't account for. But I don't want to argue about how stats aren't always the facts. I just want to give my point of view that crime is not going down where I am and its the truth from what I'm seeing and how people are living now compared to in the past. Some people can just look at stats and feel safe then ok thats fine with me but thats not me. Regardless though if the crime is going up or down, I've seen enough things to make me want to protect my home and family. I don't need people googling stats to tell me otherwise.

You said you don't care about data, you only care about what you see and feel around you.

If you want to say that big data for the nation doesn't apply to you locally, that's fine, I gave you room for that by noting if you are only talking about localized problems that data may not be readily available and your experience may trump big data.

If you are going to talk about what is going on in the country as a whole, your view of an extremely localized area doesn't seem very meaningful or relevant compared to big data or studies. If you don't understand why that is true and feel insulted by me pointing it out to you, then I'm not sure what to tell you. You can take this advice or leave it, it isn't important to me. If you want to be taken seriously in a conversation then starting it off with "I don't care what the data says" is probably not a good way to achieve that objective.

You can certainly point out things you find in the data to be skewed or say this data may not be relevant or measuring the right thing, or discount specific data for many reasons, and if you did that, I would absolutely feel differently about it but that's much different than saying I don't care about what the data says. It's saying the data is flawed significantly, here is why.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

I don't think we need to get personal here.

And um wow, talk about putting words in my mouth. Well for one I do believe in facts. Facts. Not everything you look up on the internet is real. Not everything you view on the news is as it appears. I also think stats can be skewed. There's a lot that stats don't account for. But I don't want to argue about how stats aren't always the facts. I just want to give my point of view that crime is not going down where I am and its the truth from what I'm seeing and how people are living now compared to in the past. Some people can just look at stats and feel safe then ok thats fine with me but thats not me. Regardless though if the crime is going up or down, I've seen enough things to make me want to protect my home and family. I don't need people googling stats to tell me otherwise.

You said you don't care about data, you only care about what you see and feel around you.

If you want to say that big data for the nation doesn't apply to you locally, that's fine, I gave you room for that by noting if you are only talking about localized problems that data may not be readily available.

If you are going to talk about what is going on in the country at wide, your view of an extremely localized area doesn't seem very meaningful or relevant compared to big data or studies. If you don't understand why that is true and feel insulted by me pointing it out to you, then I'm not sure what to tell you, but if you want to be taken seriously in a conversation then starting it off with "I don't care what the data says" is probably not a good way to achieve that objective.

You put those words in my mouth.

[moorhosj]

No its not just about how I feel, its what I have seen and see here in the streets at night. Its enough data for me to make the decision that I need to protect my household. Like I said I don't want to argue about stats.

Which was my entire point. You don't want an actual discussion. If we can't agree on facts, there is no discussion to be had.

[dougthonus]

You put those words in my mouth.

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

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

And as i said, if you are talking only about a very localized problem, you may be absolutely right, but that's less relevant to a wide discussion about policy for the country.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

No its not just about how I feel, its what I have seen and see here in the streets at night. Its enough data for me to make the decision that I need to protect my household. Like I said I don't want to argue about stats.

Which was my entire point. You don't want an actual discussion. If we can't agree on facts, there is no discussion to be had.

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

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

You put those words in my mouth.

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

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

Yeah its not just a "feeling".