July 4th parade shooting, Highland Park, IL

[jamil]

It’s okay to call them communists.

 

[KG1]

Honest query.

Why does it matter what inanimate tool a murderous piece of **** thug uses to murder?

The issue is not the tool. The issue is the murderous thug.

Why the focus on the tool?

I agree. The business about what tool was used is about directing the narrative. The poor souls that lost their lives are still just as dead at the hands of a murderous POS thug behind the trigger of an inanimate tool no matter what tool was used. If it wasn't for him pulling the trigger they would still be alive. The tool all by itself isn't capable of being autonomous. It only works for what the operator intends it too. It can be used for good or in this case evil.

 

[jamil]

I agree. The business about what tool was used is about directing the narrative. The poor souls that lost their lives are still just as dead at the hands of a murderous POS thug behind the trigger of an inanimate tool no matter what tool was used. If it wasn't for him pulling the trigger they would still be alive. The tool all by itself isn't capable of being autonomous. It only works for what the operator intends it too. It can be used for good or in this case evil.

The question about the tool isn't about the victims or the shooter, or where the blame lies. It lies squarely on the shooter. Like I said, it's more about making sense of why they hadn't revealed the gun 2 days into this.

 

[thunderchicken]

Sounded to me like the Officer at the press conference stated there had been 4 guns purchased in 2020. The one used, kel tec, Remington 700 and a shotgun. Then in 2021 after the murderer had turned 21 he purchased a Glock 43. So, to me it sounds like he actually owned 5 guns that we know of. Also, the state's attorney stated that there was a 30rnd "clip" emptied and that he reloaded. Then he talked about the gun used in the context of being an "assault weapon" of which type was previously banned...and he supports such ban etc etc.

For what little it's worth, it makes me believe it may have been an AR (of whatever make) used. Perhaps they aren't coming out and saying it, in hope that it keep the focus on the shooter? Thereby keeping the gun and mag capacity as a separate issue?

 

[KG1]

 

[jamil]

Sounded to me like the Officer at the press conference stated there had been 4 guns purchased in 2020. The one used, kel tec, Remington 700 and a shotgun. Then in 2021 after the murderer had turned 21 he purchased a Glock 43. So, to me it sounds like he actually owned 5 guns that we know of. Also, the state's attorney stated that there was a 30rnd "clip" emptied and that he reloaded. Then he talked about the gun used in the context of being an "assault weapon" of which type was previously banned...and he supports such ban etc etc.

For what little it's worth, it makes me believe it may have been an AR (of whatever make) used. Perhaps they aren't coming out and saying it, in hope that it keep the focus on the shooter? Thereby keeping the gun and mag capacity as a separate issue?

I've seen reporting from a couple of news outlets that it was a Smith & Wesson M&P15.

 

[KG1]

Sounded to me like the Officer at the press conference stated there had been 4 guns purchased in 2020. The one used, kel tec, Remington 700 and a shotgun. Then in 2021 after the murderer had turned 21 he purchased a Glock 43. So, to me it sounds like he actually owned 5 guns that we know of. Also, the state's attorney stated that there was a 30rnd "clip" emptied and that he reloaded. Then he talked about the gun used in the context of being an "assault weapon" of which type was previously banned...and he supports such ban etc etc.

For what little it's worth, it makes me believe it may have been an AR (of whatever make) used. Perhaps they aren't coming out and saying it, in hope that it keep the focus on the shooter? Thereby keeping the gun and mag capacity as a separate issue?

i can't really speculate on exactly why the spokesperson did'nt specifically name the firearm that was used but he could have done it to avoid the political aspect which is a good thing if that were the case. Pretty sure as an official spokesperson he knew what type of weapon it was. He just did'nt disclose it for whatever reason.

 

[jamil]

I remember seeing an article that insisted that states with more gun control correlated with lower murders per capita attributed to guns. And sure enough, their plot showed a linear relationship. But they used a weighting system to quantify "more gun control". I mean, you can play with the weighting system until you get the correlation you want. How much is universal background checks worth compared to waiting periods? Or gun registrys? Obviously that's problematic.

The purpose of gun control is to limit the number of people who have access to guns. And so a state's gun ownership per captia vs gun deaths is a lot better to evaluate if you want to see how much gun ownership affects murder rates. So I looked up the stats for all 50 states. Gun ownership was difficult but I think I got pretty close. The scatter plot was very...scattered. Correlation coefficient was almost zero. Pretty much noise. So then I plugged in numbers for different factors to see what has better correlation.

I wish I still had the spreadsheet. I can't remember all the numbers. I do remember that poverty had a large correlation. But Gini Index had the highest correlation, which was somethign like 0.4something, which is kinda highish. 1 would be perfect correlation. .4 suggests there's something to it. The legal availability of guns did not seem to impact murder rates much.

 

[thunderchicken]

i can't really speculate on exactly why the spokesperson did'nt specifically name the firearm that was used but he could have done it to avoid the political aspect which is a good thing if that were the case. Pretty sure as an official spokesperson he knew what type of weapon it was. He just did'nt disclose it for whatever reason.

Agreed.
I just get the impression that the Deputy chief and so far the state's attorney are doing what they can to keep the focus of the crime(s) on the murderous schmuck rather than the firearm actually used.
If that's the case, I would be impressed by the professionalism in doing so. Those two certainly from what I've seen haven't conducted themselves like any of the other public officials I recall seeing from the Chicago land area.

 

[Cameramonkey]

The only thing that makes any sense as to why they are being so secretive about the gun is because it was banned. By admitting what was used, they are also admitting thier laws don’t work to keep people safe.

Additionally they said it was LIKE an assault rifle. Pretty sure that model we are speculating about fits their definition.

EDIT: And it also illustrates the double standards .gov uses; If they want it banned, it most certainly is one. If they dont want to admit the ban failed, its LIKE one.

And could they say it is LIKE one is because its a PCC and they are using that as an excuse?

 

[Shadow01]

Can this federal funding of red flag laws be used to expand to including the reporting of possible drunk drivers so the rest of society can feel safe from possible dui deaths by confiscating every vehicle on the property of a reported person? It should be one of the easiest expansions of a law since driving is just a privilege and not a right like gun ownership. Thousands of lives can be saved annually by making this happen. See something, say something…

 

[KLB]

Can this federal funding of red flag laws be used to expand to including the reporting of possible drunk drivers so the rest of society can feel safe from possible dui deaths by confiscating every vehicle on the property of a reported person? It should be one of the easiest expansions of a law since driving is just a privilege and not a right like gun ownership. Thousands of lives can be saved annually by making this happen. See something, say something…

How is travel a privilege and not a right?

 

[Cameramonkey]

How is travel a privilege and not a right?

Easy. You have the right to go anywhere you want. However there are no specific modes that are a right. Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege.

 

[jamil]

How is travel a privilege and not a right?

Because my 9th grade civics teacher said so!

Seriously, if you have to have a license/permit issued by the government to do the thing you want, it’s effectively a privilege. But with public roads specifically, they are government provided and are a bit like an entitlement. You get to be on them but the government gets to decide the rules for their use. So it’s a privilege, not a right.

 

[KLB]

Easy. You have the right to go anywhere you want. However there are no specific modes that are a right. Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege.

First, you don't have the right to go anywhere you choose. Private property is off limits unless access is granted to you.

Second, as I look I find that the privilege is actually a definition of right.

right
noun
Definition of right (Entry 2 of 4)
1: qualities (such as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval
2: something to which one has a just claim: such as
a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled
voting rights
his right to decide

Third, where does it state that the mode of travel has any bearing on your right to travel?

 

[KLB]

Because my 9th grade civics teacher said so!

Seriously, if you have to have a license/permit issued by the government to do the thing you want, it’s effectively a privilege. But with public roads specifically, they are government provided and are a bit like an entitlement. You get to be on them but the government gets to decide the rules for their use. So it’s a privilege, not a right.

Like having to have a license to carry a gun? Many of our rights are controlled or limited by the government. Does that make them less of a right?

Government roads are owned by the people.

 

[jamil]

First, you don't have the right to go anywhere you choose. Private property is off limits unless access is granted to you.

Second, as I look I find that the privilege is actually a definition of right.



Third, where does it state that the mode of travel has any bearing on your right to travel?

First, I think the context of "go anywhere you choose" is on public roads.

Second, definitions of rights can be murky because people mean different things when they say "right". The constitution doesn't enumerate rights, it's just assumed that people have them, and that those are behaviors people get to do without having to have permission. And I think when people say traveling on a public road is a privilege, not a right, that's the definition of right that they're referring to.

Third, you do have a right to freely travel, but your path will be impacted by other people's rights and privileges.

 

[jamil]

Like having to have a license to carry a gun? Many of our rights are controlled or limited by the government. Does that make them less of a right?

Government roads are owned by the people.

Effectively, if you have to have a license to carry a gun, then the government is treating that as a privilege and not a right. Government roads are owed by the people theoretically. But we'll stay with that. If everyone owns it, then no one owns it? Not exactly. Effectively it's owned by the people who decide how, when, and whether you can use it. For the purpose of constitutionally protected rights, if you have to have permission, it's regarded by the government as a privilege, whether you have the theoretical right.

 

[Ingomike]

I remember seeing an article that insisted that states with more gun control correlated with lower murders per capita attributed to guns. And sure enough, their plot showed a linear relationship. But they used a weighting system to quantify "more gun control". I mean, you can play with the weighting system until you get the correlation you want. How much is universal background checks worth compared to waiting periods? Or gun registrys? Obviously that's problematic.

The purpose of gun control is to limit the number of people who have access to guns. And so a state's gun ownership per captia vs gun deaths is a lot better to evaluate if you want to see how much gun ownership affects murder rates. So I looked up the stats for all 50 states. Gun ownership was difficult but I think I got pretty close. The scatter plot was very...scattered. Correlation coefficient was almost zero. Pretty much noise. So then I plugged in numbers for different factors to see what has better correlation.

I wish I still had the spreadsheet. I can't remember all the numbers. I do remember that poverty had a large correlation. But Gini Index had the highest correlation, which was somethign like 0.4something, which is kinda highish. 1 would be perfect correlation. .4 suggests there's something to it. The legal availability of guns did not seem to impact murder rates much.

Now do gangs…

 

[KLB]

Effectively, if you have to have a license to carry a gun, then the government is treating that as a privilege and not a right. Government roads are owed by the people theoretically. But we'll stay with that. If everyone owns it, then no one owns it? Not exactly. Effectively it's owned by the people who decide how, when, and whether you can use it. For the purpose of constitutionally protected rights, if you have to have permission, it's a privilege.

That sidestepped the question. Either something is a right or it isn't. Really the .gov infringing a right does not make it less of a right.

Let's use the logic that gets applied to guns so often. The founders saw free travel as a right. Just because they only were able to walk, ride a horse, or drive a wagon does not mean that those were the only forms of transportation they would view as being covered by that right.

Seems we also really use the words wrong

Definition of privilege​

(Entry 1 of 2)
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : PREROGATIVE