5 dead, 16 hospitalized in mass shooting at Highland Park Fourth of July parade, shooter being sought

Lursa · Jul 5, 2022

Callen said:
I agree. We have the exact same problem with young men here the difference is they can't easily get a high-power weapon when the rage overwhelms them. For the life of me I don't understand the need for easy access to a weapon like an AR15. I know gang gun violence is a serious problem, it is here too, but we must look at the issues separately because they have totally different origins and totally different outcomes. Most of us know that the South side of Chicago might not be the best place for us to spend our time but when you can't go to a parade, a mall, a concert, the movies or even school for God's sake without being worriedl there is something really, really wrong.

They're saying this guy planned for a year. We know that the Uvalde and Buffalo grocery store shooters planned way in advance and this is a known common characteristic. It was also mentioned in the link I posted yesterday by a psychiatrist.

These guys commonly plan...many expect/plan to die and so they are living thru, getting gratification out of, the planning and fantasizing.

It's not usually a spur of the moment thing, just reacting out of momentary rage. I think some of the workplace shootings are more like that. They go home, get whatever gun(s) they have there, and return.

Lycanthrope · Jul 5, 2022

VanceMack said:
Responding to your post...gladly.

If you want to do something about the death and violence, then we can talk all day long...but it doesnt have anything to do with banning guns or guns in general, so any discussion of the problem that starts and ends with guns is just...stupid. Its as stupid as discussing drunk driving by talking about the evil cars.

You dont want solutions. Solutions would require examining the environment in minority communities where the vast majority of firearm related deaths occur. Working to understand the mass shooting problem would require examining the downfall of society and a discussion of how we went from 30 years of incidents running on average 1-2 per year to the last 12 years where incidents have climbed to on average around 13 a year.

You dont want to resolve the problem...you want to piss yourself and bleat about guns.

My discussion did not begin and end with guns. The post you are referring to was in response to @Lursa 's question on how do we limit the availability of guns in America. I have stated repeatedly that this is just one required component of a multi-step response.

Lursa · Jul 5, 2022

Torus34 said:
Hi, Renae.

When we consider deaths by gunshot in the United States of America we can start with the actual cause of death. With but a few exceptions, the death is caused by the destructive force of a bullet. Again with note of the possibility in which it's not the case, a bullet which kills someone is fired from a gun. And again noting the rare exception, the gun is fired by a person.

With the caveats, we have a progression. A person fires a gun which propels a bullet which kills a person. This is a causal chain of events. If the chain is broken at any link, the death, again with a caveat for a rare possible exception, will not obtain.

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . 'n un-shot.

Another empty useless post from you...why do you come to a discussion board? It's ok just to 'read' other people's debates if you dont have anything of value to add. You know that, right?

Lycanthrope · Jul 5, 2022

NolanVoyd said:
Dealing with guns is a huge part of solving the problem.

It's the elephant in the room. Refusing to acknowledge it is ridiculous.

"Guns have nothing to do with gun violence!"

Lursa · Jul 5, 2022

Lycanthrope said:
My discussion did not begin and end with guns. The post you are referring to was in response to @Lursa 's question on how do we limit the availability of guns in America. I have stated repeatedly that this is just one required component of a multi-step response.

That's a mischaracterization of our conversation. You minimized everything but gun control/restrictions. You were very negative, hopeless, about everything else. Your posts since then have started to become more ambiguous, perhaps as you've read more and gotten more information, I dont know.

VanceMack · Jul 5, 2022

Lycanthrope said:
My discussion did not begin and end with guns. The post you are referring to was in response to @Lursa 's question on how do we limit the availability of guns in America. I have stated repeatedly that this is just one required component of a multi-step response.

Literally nothing in your comment addressed the problems that create the day to day violence. Its not hard to understand...would actually be something that could be addressed...but is completely ignored. Unless there is a mass shooting with the right type of shooter and right type of weapon, this topic doesnt even come up. Any time it DOES come up (ala violence in major cities) the first thing people will do is discount the problem or try to claim there are bigger problems in other cites (red cities).

Same for mass shootings. Historically there were 1.5- 2 mass shootings a year going back to 1982. tragic...bad enough...but nothing like what is happening now. Since 2010 the mass shooting numbers annually have climbed. No one wants to address the why. No one wants to address the shooters and the circumstances. Unless it is a white shooter (approx half of the mass shooters) and an AR...the topic gets dropped like its hot.

Instead, all people want to discuss is guns. The facts remain...we have ALWAYS had guns, semiautomatic weapons have been prevalent since the 1960s. Kids used to take guns to school as part of shooting programs or after school hunting. We have ALWAYS had access to firearms. So what has changed if not the firearms?

Address that...we are on to something.

VanceMack · Jul 5, 2022

Lycanthrope said:
"Guns have nothing to do with gun violence!"

Its truth though. Guns are inanimate objects. They literally have **** all to do with violence, any more so than a car has to do with drunk driving.

Lursa · Jul 5, 2022

Callen said:
If what you say is true then they are either very lax or not enforced.

What do you mean by that, can you be more specific?

Thefts still happen but those same states/laws usually have reporting requirements as well.

Lursa · Jul 5, 2022

ttwtt78640 said:
The differences are obvious: location and the socio-economic class of the victims. That is why ‘carjacking’ became a separate ‘super crime’. It was (generally) already at least two felonies: armed robbery and grand theft auto, with a kidnapping kicker if any occupants remained in the stolen vehicle, but the special ‘carjacking’ crime was apt to involve victims of a higher socio-economic class.

Sources please?

Ishm · Jul 5, 2022

ClaraD said:
The Supreme Court said you cannot do that....you cannot institutionalize anyone for something that is not a crime....

You have to love an argument that goes - you can infringe as many rights as you like of others to stop gun crime, as long as you don't infringe any right to own a gun. It's a special type of logic.

ClaraD · Jul 5, 2022

Josie said:
Can you cite that for me?

And, I'll ask again --- I'm for putting these kinds of violent people away where they cannot gain access to firearms. Are you with me?

Lessard v Schmidt held that commitment can occur only if the person is an imminent threat to themselves or others. In other words, they have to have proof the person is about to commit a violent crime....just having a mental illness and expressing violent thoughts or showing guns is not enough. Even then, you can only hold the person for a set amount of time...involuntary commitment cannot be indefinite.

Lursa · Jul 5, 2022

Callen said:
Well, that's a new twist! The government is more responsible for the acts of a young adult mass murderer than the parent who knows he is unbalanced and provides him access to weapons designed to kill as many as possible as fast as possible...and it is my comment that is moronic? OK!

This has been recognized as an issue...it became very public here after the Cafe Racer shooter (adult male over 21) killed 5 or 6 people after his family warned the city and county over and over that they believed he was dangerous. They wanted him involuntarily committed, at least for observation. They tried to do so and couldnt. The laws at the time didnt allow it.

So now there is law that enables a path for reporting potentially dangerous mentally-ill people and getting them at least committed on temporary holds for evaluation.

Plasmaball · Jul 5, 2022

Common Sense 1 said:
What do you think about the on-going gang violence that happens ever day in city after city? Not a word about it. Of course Chicago is a prime example.
Crickets from democratic leadership?
Why? Poltics

Home

www.chicago.gov

I mean I know they talk about it, I don't even need to link to it to know that people are working at it.

But it's real easy for someone like you who sits on their phone whining about it.
Go do something about it if you care that much instead of using it to gaslight attacking democrats about it.

Because you are using it for? Politics

Josie · Jul 5, 2022

ClaraD said:
Lessard v Schmidt held that commitment can occur only if the person is an imminent threat to themselves or others. In other words, they have to have proof the person is about to commit a violent crime....just having a mental illness and expressing violent thoughts or showing guns is not enough. Even then, you can only hold the person for a set amount of time...involuntary commitment cannot be indefinite.

Then I agree with the Supreme Court ruling.

And, I'll ask again --- I'm for putting these kinds of violent people away where they cannot gain access to firearms. Are you with me?

Plasmaball · Jul 5, 2022

Lutherf said:
The dead and injured are the victims. Those of you seeking to make anti-Trump political hay out of this are merely deplorable.

Why you guys did it with the softball congress shooting and the more recent Justice attempt of murder one.

But when it's one of yours then how dare anyone bring that up.

If you can't grasp that people like trump who use the rhetoric that he uses are the problem then you are the problem here.

Lutherf · Jul 5, 2022

Callen said:
If what you say is true then they are either very lax or not enforced.

Consider this guy from yesterday. Illinois already has pretty much every gun law the left wants outside of an outright ban on guns. They have a "Firearms Restraining Order" law and Everytown ranks them 6th in the nation as far as enacting laws to prevent firearm related homicide. There are waiting periods, age restrictions, background checks, secure storage requirements, etc. This guy was still able to legally purchase firearms because, apparently, nobody thought he was screwed up in the head enough to get a restraining order on him.

The media, and therefore much of the general public, likes to look at these incidents entirely after the fact and then "Monday morning quarterback" the whole thing by saying "get rid of guns". The problem isn't guns. The problem is people and the continuing trend to accommodate bad and/or irrational behavior rather than to address it with the intent of fixing it or, failing that, mitigating the potential for that behavior to become a danger to the person or to the public. The tndency is to look at these behaviors and try not to stigmatize the individual rather than trying to rehabilitate the individual.

Nearly every one of this type of mass shooter broadcasts their intent in some way. They tend to recognize that they are incapable of helping themselves and do things that would tell a rational person that they need help. Rarely is that kind of help given.

ttwtt78640 · Jul 5, 2022

Lursa said:
Sources please?

OK, but you will note that motive was not explicitly stated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1992/10/07/dc-council-passes-carjacking-laws/6079515d-5007-43a5-a7de-7c1924f562c4/

Md. bill would charge juveniles as adults for attempted carjacking

Legislation under consideration in the Maryland General Assembly would add attempted carjacking and attempted armed carjacking to the list of offenses that juveniles at least 16 years of age can

www.somdnews.com

Maryland Carjacking Penalties | Auto-Theft Offense Consequences

If you face Maryland carjacking penalties contact an experienced theft lawyer who can help mitigate the penalties you face.

maryland-criminallawyer.com

§ 22–2803. Carjacking. | D.C. Law Library

code.dccouncil.us

ClaraD · Jul 5, 2022

Lursa said:
Did they go into specifics on how they identified and found him? It's been very general...someone 'observed him and reported him'. I've read it was a cop and it was a bystander But if he was disguised as has come out...there are many unconnected dots here at the moment.

He left the gun at the scene....a gun he legally bought.

Lursa · Jul 5, 2022

Callen said:
Getting them off the streets takes laws. Laws the GOP are too cowardly to pass. Dems need to pound this home along with the GOP taking away freedoms in November! It's the only way true freedoms will be protected.

That's overly-simplistic. Anyone with intent to do harm or commit crimes ignores such laws. They only place the law-abiding at a greater disadvantage...it makes the entire rest of the country a vulnerable 'gun free zone'. Which only the law-abiding respect.

Even repealing the 2A wouldnt work, and Prohibition and The War on Drugs are strong evidence. Not only that, they created more crime.

Lursa · Jul 5, 2022

ClaraD said:
He left the gun at the scene....a gun he legally bought.

And? Was that gun traced to him?

ClaraD · Jul 5, 2022

Josie said:
Then I agree with the Supreme Court ruling.

And, I'll ask again --- I'm for putting these kinds of violent people away where they cannot gain access to firearms. Are you with me?

So, you are for ignoring the Supreme court ruling that says you cannot put them away? He hadn't committed a violent crime previously and there was no evidence he was a danger to himself or others previous to the shooting.

ClaraD · Jul 5, 2022

Lursa said:
And? Was that gun traced to him?

According to what I heard on the radio, yes.

Lursa · Jul 5, 2022

snakestretcher said:
Yes, to remove the majority; I clearly agreed that 'all' would be impossible. Get rid of 2A. Job done.

Prohibition and The War on Drugs didnt get rid of 'the majority' of booze and drugs.

Josie · Jul 5, 2022

ClaraD said:
So, you are for ignoring the Supreme court ruling that says you cannot put them away? He hadn't committed a violent crime previously and there was no evidence he was a danger to himself or others previous to the shooting.

I disagree that there was no evidence that he was a danger.

And, I'll ask again --- I'm for putting these kinds of violent people away where they cannot gain access to firearms. Are you with me?

Lursa · Jul 5, 2022

ClaraD said:
According to what I heard on the radio, yes.

Just heard that on local news as well. How stupid or delusional was that? He made an effort to disguise himself...yet left that identifier behind?

5 dead, 16 hospitalized in mass shooting at Highland Park Fourth of July parade, shooter being sought

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Honest

*probably reading smut*

Honest

Sometimes wrong

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

*probably reading smut*

Tenacious

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

probably reading smut

probably reading smut