Shooting in Highland Park, Illinois. Near July 4th parade. 6 deaths..

Not sure anything has been “debunked”, reportedly he sat in as a stranger in a synagogue (sat through one of their services). He may have been scouting targets before settling on the parade.

 

Thanks. What I thought.

Then why is that angle not even mentioned in reporting from the local paper, which would know the area? Asking rhetorically.

 

His dad sponsored his FOID application after he had already been determined to be a clear and present danger to himself or others twice. You can’t buy a gun in Illinois without an FOID, and you can’t get an FOID if you’re under 21 (which he was at the time) without a parental sponsor.

His parents definitely have a lot more responsibility for this one than lobbying groups or random store owners who don’t know the guy.

 

If the dad sponsored the application with a signature (a specific fact I was not aware of), then I agree that makes him a party.

My point was more with regards to holding the parents responsible merely for raising him, which is completely absurd.

 

And I am suggesting we move the minimum age to buy a long gun to 24… which would seem to make it not so easily accessible.

 

Why just "long" guns?

 

No idea, saw some speculation early it may have been targeting the Jewish community, just because this area supposedly has a large Jewish community. But this individual was local, he didn’t come from afar. Ultimately it appears to be a random shooting of a parade, the synagogue may have been a target he was considering. Perhaps even that wasn’t so much religious hate as looking for possible mass murder targets? No way to know ultimate motive unless the lunatic admits it or put it in words somewhere.

 

...according to the law, which we can amend.

IMHO, 18 is way too young for full blown adulthood.

The insurance companies offer a discount at 25. They didn't cull that number out of their asses--they followed evidence, statistics and science.

18 OTOH, is culled out of ass/wholecloth.

So IMHO, that would be as good a place as any to start.

What's more, while y'all want to take away guns from the law abiding, I'm suggesting extending accountability, to the ppl who make and/or enable these @#$#@$ monsters.

300 million guns owned by 100+ million owners, for what we have in terms of gun violence, means MOST gun owners, are responsible.

100 shitbags a year doing these mass shootings and shooting ppl up, means we have 100 shit bags being enabled by their circle of friends and made by their families, and if we don't hold them accountable, then THEY will continue to hide behind the law, while the rights of 100+ million gun owners get stripped down, due to the shitbags and their families' irresponsibility.

JMHO/FWIW.

 

Problem is family and friends won’t turn over these dead beats. Truth is scumbags typically associate with scum buckets. It seems a sociopath doesn’t really stick out that much to their own crowd.

 

This is exactly what I was going to say. To ban guns or any specific type will not be effective.
I was not for raising age to 24 but the statistics speak for themselves. I do think if you have a young person that is into hunting, target shooting, etc.. They could go through an extensive background check, extensive gun safety training and a psych test and that point be able to purchase. If you are out of high school, can consume alcohol and go and fight and get killed defending this country you should be able to purchase a firearm. But you have to take steps to qualify. We can argue and disagree on what those steps may be, but it is hard to argue against making in more difficult for 18-24 to be able to purchase.

 

Well yes, but perhaps if they realize that they might be hailed into court to answer for their family member's shittiness, they might be inclined to get them help, create distance, wash their hands of 'em, throw'm under the bus, sick the proper authorities on them, whatever...

...anything better than shrugging their shoulders, and sayin'g

"hey, if he shoots 50 ppl up, what's it to me? It's on him....ain't no skin off my back...".

BTW, I mentioned my wife upthread working with these 'red flags'--a couple of years ago, there was this sicko who got the FBI's attention...and guess what dad's response was? Nil. Defensive. Acting like his kid was ok (kid was a ticking timebomb...).

It may sound cold and callous, but compared to letting the family of these killers/monsters off scot free, while families of their monsters' vics have to do without their loved ones....seems to me to be justice long overdue.

Own your @#$@#$ monsters. Reel their asses in.

I guaran-damn-tee you, if any of my kids manifested a fraction of the shit these idiots do before they go full monster, they' have a face full of dadittude and every corrective measure imaginable dispensed.

NB: I'm talking about non-violent correction here, as I've never hit my own kids; I don't see the benefit (and that's coming from someone who got touched up pretty good by his own dad).

 

You can teach gun safety in under 8 hours. Raising the age limit I’m good with.

 

I don't think you're wrong about the stats, but IF those steps to qualify would be constitutional and IF they would be effective to weed out people who shouldn't have guns, I don't see why we couldn't apply those same qualification steps to all ages. I imagine there would be a grandfather provision for guns that are currently owned, so someone who already owns the guns they want would not have to go through those steps retroactively. Maybe not even for new purchases if they've been a law abiding gun owner for a certain number of years. Maybe if we want to target a group, we could just apply these additional steps to men since women are such a very small part of this problem. I'm sure that would be legally problematic and say that mostly in jest.

All that said, I could be wrong, but I assume many of these mass shooters could pass a psych evaluation and that's an awful lot of power to give to evaluators. On the other hand, the government has the power to put people in institutions and take away peoples' kids. Those sorts of things should not be done lightly and we would need to have serious judicial oversight. I do think something along these lines is more politically realistic than banning guns, and I have an issue with all-out bans anyway. Of course, none of this touches on the social problems associated with increased mass shootings, but I'm just not convinced there are policy solutions for that side of the problem.

 

That his father signed that under those circumstances has implications beyond legal liability (although it may not create that - hard to say without knowing the regs). It points to how demented/distorted gun culture has become. Unlimited gun ownership has become such a cultural signifier/mark of identity that a father in those circumstances just could not accept that his son should be denied.

Obviously I'm speculating a bit, but from what we have read about his father, I suspect that is very close to what was going on.

 

I hear you. The driving thing for me is what I see as an imperative to do more even in the face of that potential for abuse since that potential will always exist. But right now we don't suffer an abuse problem, we suffer from both a lack of robust regulations & enforcement of regs on the books, or rather we suffer from adequately addressing red flags. As you had mentioned, there are a lot more sicko freaks out there than many realize. We need not allow such folks access/legal ownership guns under 2a.

 

Posted in the wrong thread. Sorry. Will delete the post

 

This is why we can't achieve any good sound advancements in gun control laws. You state how "demented and distorted gun culture has become", do you know anybody that owns a gun? Are they demented and distorted? Nearly everyone I know owns at least one gun, some probably more than what most would approve, some with a ton of ammo because they are the prepper mindset, but not a single one of them have ever posed a threat to be a killer. Until the "Gun Abstinence" crowd recognize that way over 99% of gun owners are law abiding the problem will never be fixed.

 

Of course I know plenty of people who own a gun. How could I not? In fact, your presuming I don't. I don't, but plenty of gun owners are also disgusted with the current culture.

To say that gun culture is demented and distorted is not saying every single individual gun owner is demented and distorted. You should consider what the terms mean. I'll link below to a piece that best captures weat I was attempting to convey.

But a few things. I am disgusted by the prepper mindset. I think those preparing for it are far more likely to be a cause of societal breakdown than someone reacting to it. Second, most of the mass killers never "pose[] a threat to be a killer" until they do. Finally, I agree with you that we over 99% of gun owners are law abiding. Of course, as noted above, many mass killers are law abiding until the point when they become mass killers.

But even projecting the meaning of "law-abiding citizens" as meaning that they would never ever turn into mass killers, the math is still problematic. Some rough back of the envelope math. These numbers off the top of my head without looking up, just to illustrate a point.

It's estimated there are about 400 million guns out there. That doesn't mean 400 million owners. As you correctly note, a significant portion of gun owners own multiple guns. So let's say there are 50 million gun owners. And let's say that only one 10th of one percent - .001, have even the possibility of becoming dangerous. That's 50,000 if I did my math correct. Obviously that's even overstating the risk. As bad as things are, they're not at that level. But even if it's .0001, that's 5,000 individuals out there that are potentially dangerous. That's very dangerous.

We plainly have a culture problem. What caused it is uncertain. Obviously a lot comes from political culture. Media culture also bear some responsibility. But either way we now have a societal problem. Pointing out the likely explanation for a father signing off under those circumstances is being part of a culture is just pointing out the obvious.

I'm not sure I have any easy answers. It's certainly not "gun abstinence". Here is the piece that I think is most apt - Against Gun Idolatry

 

I never presumed anything. All I asked was if you knew any gun owners and if you did, were any of them part of demented and distorted culture you describe?
I read the article, but I think it is no different than anything else out there that we may like individually and try to find folks who like it as much. Been to a Harley shop lately? Been to any sec game and see the demented culture around the team the participants are rooting for? What yo may see as distorted and demented culture does not make it harmful. Your own math equation shows it is such a small number of killers that to say the "Gun Culture" caused is hardly accurate or we would see the number 10-fold what they are now.
I firmly believe there are issues and laws that need to be improved on and enforced, but to do something just to say we did something is idiotic.

 

After reading this interview with the dad… I think we have a dad problem in this country. Infuriating. Broken homes and broken toy soldiers.

“They make me like I groomed him to do all this,” he said of critics. “I’ve been here my whole life, and I’m gonna stay here, hold my head up high, because I didn’t do anything wrong.”

Crimo Jr., who’s been telling reporters he isn’t the shooter’s dad but instead a caretaker for the home, said he and the suspect’s mother are “devastated” and “floored” over the bloodshed.


Crimo dad washes hands of guilt but talked with son about a mass shooting night before Highland Park massacre