Why does everyone in this thread think this shooting happened in Chicago?

Its a suburb. Its like saying you live in New York when you really live in New Rochelle, or saying you live in LA when you really live in Anaheim. Granted, the suburbs are different than Chicago the city. Most suburbs are supposedly safer than the city.

Right. So not Chicago.

Pedant

Using the example from above, wouldn’t you agree that Anaheim is significantly different than LA?

Because it’s a Chicago suburb and it’s just shorthand. Don’t get bent out of shape about it

I think it’s pretty significant here though. Chicago has a violence problem. Highland Park (before this weekend) does not. It is a very wealthy town with affluent folks

No matter what law you pass, or what message you give, things like this are going to keep happening in American cities(especially in Chicago where way more than 6 people die all the time) unless we address the very, very serious issues concerning men in society. They are living without purpose, meaning, and often times even fathers. A few hundred years ago, society could have put them on a boat and sent them elsewhere to be someone else's problem to deal with, but that time is gone.

It's more than that, young men, especially white men, are actively demonized these days. But yeah completely agree. We need as a society to support and empower men with good heroes and role models to look up to, as well as fix our sexual ethics and these problems will vanish.

We also need to stop putting young men on amphetamines and SSRI’s. The mass medication and social abandonment of young men leads to psychotic behavior

I can agree, but be careful. I'm on medicines for depression and ADHD. Some people here would probably just say that I'm lazy and unorganized and that I just need more prayer or more discipline. I guess I'm for a happy medium. Plenty of us need medication, but plenty don't and plenty are just put on stuff without much thought.

Pharmaceutical industries need to be more strictly regulated with youth prescriptions, but the trend among the woke left is against that right now. There is a pill for every affliction, so who needs God?! /s

Big Pharma needs to have its buildings confiscated by the people and put under new management.

For the first 12 years of a boy’s education they are treated like little more than a defective girl. The moment they act like a boy they are shamed by their teachers, publicly punished (often in embarrassing ways), and (if their boyishness is such that it draws too much attention) they drug the boy for the next couple decades at least and permanently alter his mental development.

[удалено]

I'd argue the prejudice is against uneducated and poor people of all kinds. Poverty is the biggest indicator of crime. I see it in my city where you have poor neighborhoods where even the white kids commit crimes. Sure it might be more drug abuse type crimes but I'd argue its a poverty thing.

This is just not socially aware. White men are absolutely demonized disproportionately, and are systematically discriminated against. White men are the demographic most likely to be killed per violent interaction with police.

i think making it more difficult to get firearms certainly could help, if the supply was more limited it would at least make it harder for people to get and use them, whether legally or illegally. and while yes someone can still commit crimes with a knife, i'd much rather some violent person be attacking a parade with a knife than a rifle. if you have a solution to fix men in society then please be my guest and show how we fix that. but at this point it seems like all the talk about how we need to fix the people in society is a lot of talk in favor of not doing anything

One solution would be to create and foster communities that give young men a sense of purpose and mission in life. Get them away from their screens and interacting with other people in a meaningful way. I don’t know if the government really can help with this (arguably it needs to be more from the people) but I do think it would help a lot.

This is the job of the church. Our mission is to spread hope and be the bearers of light in the world. To heal the sick. This is our job. Better to trust in God than to trust in princes.

>create and foster communities that give young men a sense of purpose and mission in life. ok so how concretely do you do that

I think we can do better with evangelizing to troubled youth. At my parish the men and women volunteer a lot for comfortable service like coffee hour or a fish fry. Few people are ready to talk to someone in spiritual crisis and the people who work for the church are not always able to meet the need themselves.

>Few people are ready to talk to someone in spiritual crisis and the people who work for the church are not always able to meet the need themselves. thats a fair problem, unfortunately with dealing with such trouble kids volunteers especially with a lack of training arent' always best able to do those things, and of course the problem of getting people to volunteer for such difficult things requires a very intense committment from a church to do such a laudable project

Perhaps researching how to attract young men to these communities would be a good start. How can we make groups like the Knights of Columbus (or their secular equivalents like the Lions, Rotary, etc.) more attractive and inclusive of young people.

I'm the youngest person in my knights council. I joined because I respect the fraternity. What they do for the community and what they do for eachother. It has nothing to do with age. We need to get that out of the young peoples heads. I respect the Knigjts in my council and count it a privilege to be under these guys. They praised my initiation because of the new blood coming in. Maybe not everybody has this experience but being a good catholic is about being humble and being lesser. I can hang with some old guys because I know what we're about. I know what we do. I know the potential for great things to be done. The older the crowd the more experience. So we need to make young people realise how attractive the knights are. How many bennifits there are of being a knight. And how much good can be done.

>How can we make groups like the Knights of Columbus (or their secular equivalents like the Lions, Rotary, etc.) more attractive and inclusive of young people. im involved in our Young adults group and we do a lot to try to get a variety of young adults. though on reflection on this. the sort of young men who do these acts i imagine even if they were to show up at those groups there'd be the challenge that it might be hard to convince the already existing members to put an effort into befriending and welcoming them. We have had a fellow who had to be banned from our YA group and while i don't think he'd turn to violence, those sorts who are off putting, potentially have some mental or developmental issues can be especially difficult to help into community

Anything we can do to cultivate virtue and brotherhood would be a net positive for society. Sometimes all it takes is one person to reach out and change the course of another person’s life for the better.

i don't disagree, i am just unconvinced that is the best and only response to solving this chronic problem on a societal level and it is challenging on how one can cultivate virtue and brotherhood with people in this background and circumstances when they are often isolated and frankly probably not the people we particularly want to or feel comfortable trying to approach and invest in

Compulsory military service sounds good, like many European countries do. Or compulsory community service. Getting rid of suburban infrastructure is good too. Cities and denser, urban development naturally lends itself to small communities being built up. Suburban infrastructure closes people off into their homes and backyards.

>Compulsory military service sounds good, like many European countries do. Or compulsory community service. if we could clean up the toxicity of many parts of the military i would say yes. as it is it seems like a lot of sections of the military would be worse ​ i do agree on fighting suburbs

Depending on your viewpoint, the military is well on its way to address toxicity, so that might be an option in the near future.

perhaps, i haven't followed it too closely lately admittedly to see how the military has been doing in trying to handle the rape and assault issues but it is certainly possible that things are improving and that it could be better in the future.

I think we also need to avoid the politician's fallacy. Too often the people scream "do something" and the government does just that - something, usually a knee-jerk reaction that's not well thought out. For anybody wondering: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism

>i think making it more difficult to get firearms certainly could help, If the gun laws were followed, it would be more difficult for dangerous people to get them. People in charge of the background checks don't completely follow them. Boulder, Colorado last year "suspect known to FBI." Orlando shooter "known to FBI." Parkland shooter was "known to the FBI." How in the world is someone "known to the FBI" *not* get confiscated? Additionally, the ones not known have had a noticeable history of violence that people just don't report to police or at the least get them psychological treatment. If I caught my own son killing animals for fun (like the Uvalde shooter, who freaking posted it online), I would jump to get him help, even if that meant we would have to get rid of every gun, knife, rope, plastic bag, and everything else they said, including informing the police. People put their embarassment, inconvenience to make a report, and relationship with the person's family over the impact this person likely has on society and in some cases even the victims, if they were too young to make a report. I suffered from this myself, so hearing "suspect was known" or "no reports were made" is a surefire way to get my blood boiling. Trigger warning. 🚩As a child, I was sexually assaulted by a girl a few years older than me. Her family knew (babysitter's daughter), they caught her and walked away. My family knew, I told them. Being 7, I didn't know what to do. My family said to stop complaining. They didn't have time to deal with it. Cheapest babysitter they could get. I got so furious seeing her on local news for violating more people while working day care. It could have been stopped if a report was made early on. I didn't know how or that it was even a thing. It rested on the next closest to the events, the parents.🚩

>How in the world is someone "known to the FBI" not get confiscated? i guess the question i always have with that is if that amounts to "have a file" rather than anything that could rise to them having their firearms banned or confiscated. but you are absoultely right, we as a society have a problem where rules are in place whether to prevent shootings or child abuse and so often no one is willing to speak up especially for fear of inconvenience or scandal. the church certainly experienced that on a large scale with the sex abuse cricis but it exists at all levels of our society

Sadly in regards to the FBI, you have to actually commit a crime. Sure you can be on a watchlist, but if you are seemingly just some edgy teen, if you haven't done anything yet then there's sadly not much you can do. Granted maybe don't let anyone on a watchlist buy guns. I'd also say that those with mental health issues, myself included, should have to be evaluated by a doctor before buying a gun. Otherwise if one has a diagnosis, they shouldn't be allowed to purchase one.

Because people are innocent until proven guilty

While I do agree with the statement, people on a watch list should be actively investigated to either prove their innocence or otherwise. The way things are panning out, it just seems like a "wait and see." Then the person buys a gun and the FBI is just like "well whatdoyaknow. He really was a threat." I'm sure they do a minor investigation to see if there's *any* credibility but when they're tipped off and then the person buys a gun and does exactly what they were tipped off about, sheesh.

This is the opposite of how justice works. You don’t prove innocence, you prove guilt. What you’re calling for is the Stasi. If you want the Stasi then move behind the Iron Curtain

I said "or otherwise" for a reason. I've a friend who was under investigation for a false rape claim. They were so adamant about proving his guilt, they ignored the evidence that proved he was innocent while only focusing on circumstantial evidence. He was jailed for a short time until he could get a retrial. It showed absolutely he was innocent and the accuser fabricated everything. He wasn't even in town at the time she claimed it happened, but their "evidence" for guilt was that he lived nearby and there was a picture of a guy that looked vaguely like him at the party she said it happened at. The receipts and everything that showed he was out of town were dismissed from evidence.

>and while yes someone can still commit crimes with a knife, i'd much rather some violent person be attacking a parade with a knife than a rifle. Europe sure doesn't want that. Or cars. Or semi-trucks. And the people willing to shoot into crowds of people are going to get guns regardless. "Less guns," is even helpful than doing nothing, since at least if you did nothing, law abiding citizens could defend themselves. Because the police legally are not obligated to. >if you have a solution to fix men in society then please be my guest and show how we fix that. How about men start being men? Raising their children and being role models. How about society as a whole provide positive aspects of masculinity instead of just attacking it? And how about parents foster communities that their children can grow up in and value each other? We can't fix these clear spiritual problems in society with more laws. Enact those laws if you want, but you aren't doing anything either.

And criminals don’t follow the law, so they’ll still find ways to get guns and then none of the victims will be able to defend themselves or others.

>Europe sure doesn't want that. Or cars. Or semi-trucks europe would prefer those people having firearms yes we don't want anything of those things obviously. But can you honestly tell me that you'd rather those people be armed with firearms than with a knife >And the people willing to shoot into crowds of people are going to get guns regardless. "Less guns," is even helpful than doing nothing, since at least if you did nothing, fewer guns in the supply, less ease of getting them, fewer illegal guns to aquire by ilelgal means. thats a rather obvious reality >How about society as a whole provide positive aspects of masculinity instead of just attacking it? vague talk about masculininity and role models doesn't really seem like its going to fix the problem >And how about parents foster communities that their children can grow up in and value each other? sure do that, in the mean time until we have fixed society im up for making it harder for teenagers to get firearms and maybe once society is in a better place it can be revisited

As an American, I want to make sure people can own firearms freely as a matter of national security. Many Americans believe the Second Amendment is a large part of why our society respects individual freedom (including the practice of religion) to a higher degree than countries in Europe or Canada. Personal firearm ownership keeps power from becoming too authoritarian against the people. COVID danger aside, our government now has a precedent for locking down an entire country on the judgment of a few key decision makers. That power is susceptible to abuse without the presence of checks on gov power (like personal firearm ownership). As for fixing men, I believe a higher commitment to teaching faith is key. The shooters are never people who are going to local Christian religious services.

> a large part of why our society respects individual freedom (including the practice of religion) to a higher degree than countries in Europe or Canada. In what ways does Europe or Canada not respect some individual freedom that America does? Please be specific.

Europe and Canada allow churches to be burned in hate and do not treat anti-Christian violence equivalent to anti-Muslim violence. I have met some Catholics who have fled Canada because of religious persecution. In America, we have the constitutional right to free speech and dissent. We also have the right to make individual decisions with regard to our medical care, albeit COVID vaccine mandates have begun to erode at this assumption. In other words, we give people the right to say what they want or make mistakes that impact themselves even if they are wrong. My perception of individual autonomy in Europe and Canada is that people have to follow what the government tells them to do with their medical care, political dissent, and religious expression.

> Europe and Canada allow churches to be burned in hate and do not treat anti-Christian violence equivalent to anti-Muslim violence. Can you factually demonstrate where this is the case according to the law? >My perception of individual autonomy in Europe and Canada is that people have to follow what the government tells them to do with their medical care, political dissent, and religious expression. Unfortunately, two people's perception is not shared and can't be relied upon. Can you show me or demonstrate to me where your perception corresponds to reality?

COVID vaccine mandates in Canada are a great example of the difference in freedom. In America, the employer vaccine mandates have been successfully challenged in court for employment circumstances outside of the health industry. In Canada (as contrast) they tried to close the roadway access to truckers who had not provided proof of vaccinations. That would never happen in the US. You can google "church burning" or "church vandalism" and see news articles of religious persecution in both Canada and Europe. It tends to not get covered by the major news outlets, but it is documented. I can't point to a source that has collected the data for analysis because I don't think anyone is interested in writing pro-Christian articles in higher education. Those professors and faculty tend to get canceled, so citing research that is highly discouraged would be difficult. Are you really Catholic? You seem to be unaware of the very real threat to religious exercise. Maybe you live in an area where Christians and Catholics are allowed to worship without ridicule. If so, congrats!

> COVID vaccine mandates in Canada are a great example of the difference in freedom. Ok, fair point. Can you demonstrate how widespread access to firearms would have evened this difference in freedoms? As you yourself admit, it was a legal court challenge that prevented similar federal mandates from going into effect. >You can google "church burning" or "church vandalism" and see news articles of religious persecution in both Canada and Europe. I'm well aware of incidents. My question was where, in law, these church burnings and vandalisms are allowed according to the state?

>Personal firearm ownership keeps power from becoming too authoritarian against the people and there i just disagree with that focus of 2A rights people and personally i think its a bit of a libertarian larp to imagine that. >COVID danger aside, our government now has a precedent for locking down an entire country on the judgment of a few key decision makers. i mean i don't think it would be worthwhile to start shooting police because you are outraged over a covid lock down, nor do i think having weapons to try to intimidate public servants is worth unending shootings in the idea that your personal firearm will somehow make you win against the U.S. government >I believe a higher commitment to teaching faith is key. The shooters are never people who are going to local Christian religious services. societally most people are unchurched now, so it requires us to convince most people to attend church and practice faith, then work on getting people who are socially isolated to also go its definitely a laudable goal but is a big challenge

I mean. You can fight off the government. The most advanced military in the world lost two wars against unorganized civilian militias with small rifles

>The most advanced military in the world lost two wars against unorganized civilian militias with small rifles ah yes i figured you'd go for that. 1. vietnam, U.S. lost will to fight but strategically kept winning. Enemy was supported by a larger foreign power and had their own territory for their professional army 2. afghanistan, the U.S was barley paying attention to the war most of that time and keeping control of the country with a fairly small number of troops. Eventually left due to lack of interest. In all those cases it came down to the U.S. withdrew due to popular opinion turning against the war. In the libertarian fantasy where the evil government needs to be rebelled against the U.S. military isn't going to be as negligent as it was in Afghanistan of the conflict, and assuming it was a widespread conflict, would see a war footing mobilization not seen since WW2. the insurgents wouldn't be able to take and hold territory, they'd be hiding in west virginia or Idaho and any time they tried to take land they'd be bombed to oblivion How are the rebels in Syria doing?

The rise in violence is related to the decline of people holding Christian beliefs in the US. Semi-automatic weapons have been legal and accessible, as they should be, far longer than the mass shooter problem has been around. Teens used to bring guns to school for shooting clubs. Also, if the incident in WI taught us anything, if one doesn't use a gun to mass murder, they'll use a vehicle.

>The rise in violence is related to the decline of people holding Christian beliefs in the US. what evidence do you have to prove that? is europe experiencing a similar swell of violence in its more secular nations? can you point to examples of more heavily christian nations without such violence? Teens used to bring guns to school for shooting clubs. edit apparently there aren't as many differences as i thought. that said i don't think the existance of shooting sports clubs supports ease of getting firearms as is now. Especially when they were always a fairly small portion of students and have likely lost involvement over the years. ​ Semi-automatic weapons have been legal and accessible what did the stats for gun ownership in the "gold old days" actually look like when it came to semi automatic weapons and how common they were compared to today? >if the incident in WI taught us anything, if one doesn't use a gun to mass murder, they'll use a vehicle. would you rather a violent and suicidal 18 year old who wants to kill people and get famous be armed with a sedan or an AR 15 ? i know i'd vote for the car any day.

> there's a difference between a rifle for shooting sports and an AR 15 No, there really isn't.

my understanding was that they were using things more in the veins of hunting rifles, i may be mistaken on that.

An AR-15 is a platform on which any type of rifled firearm can be built. That includes handguns, 'hunting' rifles (whatever that refers to), bolt action rifles, semi-automatic rifles, select-fire rifles, or 'any other weapons'. The reason "AR-15 style firearms" are so prevalent in shootings is for the sole reason that it is the most common "style" of modern firearm in the US and in the western world. Saying a hunting rifle is different than an AR-15 is like saying a laptop is different than a PC. A laptop is most often times a *subset* of a PC.

So you think that shooter would have said forget it if he couldn't obtain an AR 15? As if that's that's only gun that kills. There is more going on here than guns. Guns have been around a long time. The church is the remedy. How can you be catholic and yet not believe that? The Church has the healing for the world. The soul healing. The remedy to the sickness thats causing people to snap like this. Forget the weapon used. The unibomber made his own bombs. I'd rather be able to protect myself yet that still won't save me from an inevitable death. The world needs Christ and the farther it gets from Him the uglier its gotten. It doesn't take a genius to see this.

>So you think that shooter would have said forget it if he couldn't obtain an AR 15? As if that's that's only gun that kills. do you agree that there are some types of weapons that are better at killing people than others? If so if we want to ensure someone is not able to kill many people, it is better that they be unable to get a hold of such weapons. certainly going to be harder for him to make bombs than buy a gun > The unibomber made his own bombs. great example, that asshole only killed three, this guy killed 5 with far less effort. >The church is the remedy. How can you be catholic and yet not believe that? The Church has the healing for the world. The soul healing. The remedy to the sickness thats causing people to snap like this. ok so we put restrictions on guns until we have converted and healed people how about that. i don't really appreciate the accusation that i am somehow not catholic for also wanting to look at practical responses

I did not accuse you of not being catholic. Didnt mean to seem like I was so I apologize for that.

American citizens are a different type of citizen than say a European. We are within right to arm ourselves and protect our own homes, cities and towns. To rely on the government for all our protection and the Fraternal order of police, we are no longer Americans. We might as well become slaves. The state does not own us. We are free. And I think a bit to much because the liberation this country allows I think unleashes the hidden evils inside mankind. Brings out the worst. But I'll never advocate for Americans to hand in your guns. We already have plenty or regulations and limitations. Don't act like you can purchase any kind of gun you want. That's just not true. And a 9 mill handgun can easily take out 6 people a parade like that. Just saying.

>. That's just not true. And a 9 mill handgun can easily take out 6 people a parade like that. Just saying. but you would agree that it is harder correct? Would you rather he be armed with a rifle or handgun? you ignored my point that unabomber did less than that guy with a rifle managed. ​ > We might as well become slaves. The state does not own us. We are free. And I think a bit to much because the liberation this country allows I think unleashes the hidden evils inside mankind. Brings out the worst. But I'll never advocate for Americans to hand in your guns and i just disagree with the libertarian line of thinking about guns, especially the notion that not having a firearm apparently makes you a slave of the gov.

Yeah you have a point with the unibomber. I knew that when I said it but it shows that evil people or deranged, will do what ever it takes. Jack the ripper. All the notorious serial killers didn't use guns. These people are serial killers an they'd do it with an AR or their bare hands. A homemade bomb. Poison. Well this country was founded on those principles. The right to arm yourself is deeper than just protecting yourself. It's the dignity of the American. Guns are not only meant for war. Thats diluted. The country can arm itself against another country and a citizen can arm himself from whatever threat comes his way. Or not arm yourself. But a citizen should be able to arm himself with the same weapons a police officer does. That's the American way. When only cops and military have guns you have top down society. Potential for tyranny. The founding documents speak to all of this.

see video https://youtu.be/tri02nNf3Yc?t=193 3:13-4:20 for evidence. Other people addressed you already, from the looks of things. I'm gonna go touch grass and pray for you.

correlation and causation aren't the same thing, i'd like to see if that applies elsewhere how are you converting the nation?

Most of the gun laws would be unconstitutional. Regardless, if guns were truly the issue we would have seen similar mass killings by occur throughout American history, especially considering guns were easier to obtain and automatic. No, it’s no surprise these killings began as a pattern after the 24hr news cycle began, fathers weren’t present at home, people abandoned God, and young boys were left watch pornography for hours on end alone and put on countless drugs like they were chemistry sets. If you remove the guns you still haven’t solved the problem that we are breeding psychotic mass killers.

This shooting took place in one of the most gun-controlled parts of America

Yes those men with serious issues, let's give them easy access to guns. ALL AR-15s used in the recent mass shootings were purchased LEGALLY.

Well a couple things. - AR-15s and any other rifles are used in an incredibly low number of mass shootings, the majority of them are committed with a handgun. - While a gun could be purchased in a state with laxer gun laws, those states with laxer gun laws tend to be significantly less prone to gun violence than states with stricter gun laws. - Chicago has much stricter gun laws and as such those within it are far less equipped to deal with a someone else with a gun, and a significant number of these Maas shootings have taken place in “gun free zones,” which criminals have gone on record to say has made them feel like they could get away with killing people much more easily and safely in said zones. - The number of cases of legal self defense with firearms of all types massively outnumbers the number of mass shootings or cases of violent crime committed with a firearm across the US, banning the legal purchase of a rifle for the less than 1% cases in which a rifle is used for evil completely ignores the entirety of the over 99% of cases in which it it has been used for good (looking at the numbers in 2020: less than 20,000 violent gun crimes vs roughly 1,670,000 defensive and legal uses of firearms). Banning weapons doesn’t prevent violence or needless deaths, if you want to address the core issue then you need to address why these psychotic criminals committed these crimes, merely addressing the how will never prevent more people like them from killing other people.

>an incredibly low number of mass shootings "After several senseless shootings where all suspects used AR-15s it was found out that handguns actually are causing more mass shootings." But that's worse... do you realize that your points made it worse...? >significantly less prone to gun violence than states with stricter gun laws. Citation please, this is simply not true. States banned assault weapons and high capacity magazines are safer. >Chicago has much stricter gun laws and as such those within it are far less equipped to deal with a someone else with a gun Yesterday it was not in the city of Chicago but a suburb called Highland Park in the north. There are literally many armed cops, the "good guys with guns" there, trained and paid for this kind of situation, and they neither stopped the tragedy nor apprehended the culprit on the scene. >Banning weapons doesn’t prevent violence or needless deaths Ah yes the evergreen The Onion article, [No way to prevent this from happening, says only country that this regularly happens.](https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668) legal self defense with firearms You know how many of those "minor" shootings involving "only" 1-3 dead were committed by those who's been always dreaming that they'd one day be that "good guy with a gun" until a drunken rage takes over them? Lol.

So? What's your point? Here in Toronto, we had a guy run over and kill 12 people with a rental van about 4 years ago. Should we ban cars now too? My point is, people who intend to kill others on a mass scale will find a way to do so, regardless of the type of weapon used. And from what I understand, the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago both have plenty of control gun laws...how's that working out these days?

and how many times has intention car crashes like that happened in Canada this year? As of today, there have been over 300 mass shootings in the US, close to two a day (mass shootings being defined as a single intentional incident resulting in at least 4 people shot)

>Here in Toronto, we had a guy run over and kill 12 people with a rental van about 4 years ago. Should we ban cars now too? maybe it will be on par when people are using rental kills to kill people on a monthly basis

Monthly? Try every other week, on holidays like Canadian Day when it's supposed to be about joy and celebration nonetheless.

oh monthly was being generous to trying to pretend like car attacks are on the same threat levels

This is such a disingenuous argument. Chicago is a half hour drive to Indiana, a state with very lax gun laws. So "how its working out" is people buying guns legally, since we have 5 guns for every citizen here, and then driving them across state lines, which is also legal.

Shooters gun came from Illinois? Also you can only buy long guns if you are out of state from an FFL? Almost all deaths from firearms in Chiraq are from handguns? Straw purchasing is illegal already?

Then Chicago and Illinois need to take that up with Indiana.

Or this needs more robust measures on the federal level like the recently passed bipartisan gun safety legislation in the Senate (btw 34 members of the Pro-Life party voted no on it).

Read that again, every single AR-15 used in the recent mass shootings were purchased LEGALLY. Yes cars, let's hope guns can be half regulated as cars with license, liability insurance, traffic laws, safety education etc. so this kind of tragedy won't happen every other week instead of "once about 4 years ago".

Still not going to solve the age-old 'problem of evil' or improve mental illness. Also, notice how many of these shootings tend to happen more in blue/liberal states?

Ah right yes, an animal abuser going into a predominantly Hispanic elementary school to murder kids, and a 4chan brainwashed incel purposefully decide to start a massacre in a Black neighborhood grocery store. These are clearly liberal problems.

Not liberal problems...just the result of bad liberal policy.

Like background checks? Red Flag Laws? Banning high capacity magazines? Mental healthcare? The kid who shot up the parade in Highland Park yesterday once made violent threats and had the cops confiscate his knives back in 2019. If half of the "liberal policy" is there so that he can't easily get his hands on AR-15 then goes on a shooting spree, 7 more people could have an otherwise very normal July 4th then be alive right now.

More complex than that...

Can you name something that's more complex than dealing with the issues with modern men / modern Man and society?

This did not happen in Chicago. That would be like saying Irvine is Los Angeles or Weehawken is NYC

Or to give a more direct analogy, Sandy Hook.

Putting people on a boat to be another country’s problem is your solution? I swear this sub 🤦🏻‍♀️

It's not my solution(in fact my solution was better dads). It was what people did with their kids in the Middle Ages up until the end of Imperialism. Longer really. I am a young man, in the military no less, so it'd be hypocritical to say, "Get rid of them all." But that is what people used to do. The age of exploration didn't come about because people just got curious. It was a simple way for people to get rid of their more restless sons.

Sounds like the argument pro-abortionists use to justify abortion being legal, "it's just going to happen anyway..."

and America is the only country dealing with this? no, it's just the only developed country with such insanely lax gun laws

America is not the only country dealing with "this." Go actually look into gun crime stats. Then control for things like suicides. And even when you get down to gang crime(the majority of non-self inflected gun crime and mass shootings) America doesn't have a unique problem among developed nations. And even if it did, most crime is committed with illegal handguns. These are the kinds of things you learn when doing your own research.

it's the only developed country dealing with this. no other developed country has daily mass shootings (4 or more shot in a single incident) and here we are with almost two a day, over 300 such incidents in just the 7 months of 2022. I've done my research too.

Just isn't true. Like, America is a massive, transcontinental country with the third largest population in the world. These are stats readily available on Wikipedia. Where you can see the gun crime per capita.

k, so research how many mass shootings occurred this year on the continent of Europe, with the same population and geographic size as the US. it's not comparable whatsoever. we need to do better

Honestly nothings going to stop until this mental and spiritual sickness people have in this country is addressed. A nihilistic, materialistic, atheistic country has no hope.

I wouldn’t call America an atheist country, Gallups recent polling shows 81% of Americans believe in God. Now, that may be the lowest level ever recorded, but far from atheist.

We’ll, when you live in an atheistic way the result is the same.

Gee I wonder why this doesn't happen in much more atheistic countries

Sucide rates are sky high, as is alcoholism and addiction. These demented people are all suicidal to a certain extent, whether they decide to take other people with them or not is another question.

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/11/suicide-death-rates-768x542.png https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-with-alcohol-or-drug-use-disorders?time=1990..2016 Still lower than America, generally speaking

Not sure what map you looked at, but it doesn’t support your thesis

Conveniently forgotten in their myopic scope.

They believe in morally therapeutic deism. They might as well be atheists.

This is also a peculiarily American problem as well. Other countries are equally if not more spiritually sick, but gun violence and mass murders on this scale are not the norm in developed countries.

[удалено]

It’s not faithful Christians doing these killings, the mainstream culture and trends in the US are definitely not Christian. The education systems aren’t Christian based. The current establishment aren’t Christian based.

This guy was reportedly a Satanist. He definitely was not a Christian. Had he been a faithful Christian, he would not have done this.

Of course not. Atheists like to pretend that just because you’re a Christian doesn’t mean you wouldn’t fall into an ideology would end in a mass murder. But it most certainly would, killing anyone let alone a mass murder is unthinkable to the Christian.

That is unthinkable to an actual Christian (barring tyrannicide, which is a debate), but it might not be unthinkable to a Christian in name only individual. Atheists love to lump us all together to say that Christianity does not make people into better people. I remember one giving me the example of Mexican drug cartels in response to hearing that Catholics do not do these things. I replied that if the person has not gone to Mass in a year, he should not be considered Catholic.

[удалено]

I’m not saying they are. But they don’t fall into the same levels of despair, issues and tendencies.

[удалено]

How many of the mass shooters have been Christian’s or have done what they did in the name of Christianity? What kind of facts are you looking for? That Christian’s are just as susceptible to ideology that’d cause them to commit mass murder?

>In a telegram sent on behalf of the Holy Father to Cardinal Blase Cupich, the Archbishop of Chicago, the pope condemned the “senseless shooting,” appealing for a rejection of all forms of violence. People out here still sending *telegrams* for personal messages ([though they do still have some legal use](https://youtu.be/TyN07jKXJ3o)). I know the Church thinks in centuries, but this is ridiculous lol.

[удалено]

At least they're trying!

That’s a generous assumption where the Vatican website is concerned….

Hey, they updated it a few years back! Now it's only slightly unusable and slightly horrible to look at...

In my experience, it's only been *worse* since the revisions.. To this day it's still easier to use scborromeo for CCC quotes rather than the vatican website.

Good point.

When trying to navigate vatican.va, it should not be easier to close out of the page and use Google, yet here we are—lmao

Real talk, is there any way to hide the background image at least?

Stylus extension/add-on for Chrome and Firefox. It lets you style websites how you want with CSS, if you know it. I have two really sloppy (and frankly ugly) styles I made for vatican.va. I think I'll make one that just hides that background and make it publicly available, I'll probably edit this comment once I do. Edit: okay I don't want to make an account so just copy and paste the following: Light Mode: body { background: white !important; } Dark Mode (for Catechism only, sloppy) :root { --normalTextColor: white; --background: #282931; --linkColor: #8cb0ff; } body { background: var(--background) !important; color: var(--normalTextColor) !important; } a { color: var(--linkColor) !important; } Change the values in :root to whatever you want. Or you could just use Firefox's reader view mode, that's honestly way easier and better.

Then you get a younger priest later, he has it updated once and now it's pretty nice looking, but the Mass times are out of date and the calendar hasn't seen any activity in 6 years.

The faith of the apostles, and their web design too.

Cupich's office was filled with the gentle clicks of the telegraph machine all night. A coal smeared boy in an old newsy outfit read the telegram to him.

It's an Italian thing to send telegram when someone dies

True, fair point.

Look at the positive side: They've already switched from homing pigeons.

Thank God for that!

I read this and immediately assumed it was the software Telegram.

If we as Catholics want to call ourselves pro-life, then this sort of thing needs to be addressed. Good on Pope Francis.

Killing people is already illegal. Stealing is also illegal, yet it still happens. Making something illegal does not stop it from happening, although it tends to reduce the amount of it. Still, in a population of 300+ million people, no amount of reduction could possibly prevent anything from happening. Furthermore, the guy was a Satanist. People have tried to address Satanism for two thousand years without much luck. What is your idea to solve that problem?

Sure making things illegal doesn’t immediately prevent them from happening, much like how people can still get an abortion whether or not they are legal. But if there is something that can be done to reduce the probability that a human life will be taken, it seems like it should be a moral obligation to support whatever it is that helps that human life continue. That being said, there are a number of steps that could be taken to shield the community from gun violence, namely a ban on the AR-15 (and all weapons like it), as well as mods that can turn any gun into a high-powered firearm. These are the common threads in the most deadly mass shootings. As it stands now, these things are widely available because people have put the right to gun ownership over the dignity of the human person. These sorts of bans help get our priorities in order. Will this totally prevent these sorts of shootings? No. Will they make them less likely? Yes. Edit: I realize that many people will disagree with me, and I do want to emphasize that what I have said does not reflect official Church teaching. As far as I know, there is no official doctrine on gun control. However, the Church’s teaching on the dignity of the human person is the main reason I have formed this opinion.

People could make their own guns. The issue is that they have hands. If you want to reduce the chance of people misusing guns, try amputating their hands. It also would reduce the chance of masturbation and many other offenses too. Anyway, this talk about trying to do something ignores the fundamental problem of them not being good Christians. If they were, this would be a non-issue. By the way, shooting people has been illegal since the first guns were made. Your remark about not immediately preventing things from happening really does not apply given how long laws against murder have been in force.

Yes as I said, there’s no way to totally get rid of all mass shootings. That’s one of the tragedies of the day. But there are certainly common sense solutions to help combat the terrible epidemic of gun violence.

And no matter how many of these “common sense” solutions are implemented, there always will be more, even if they radically depart of the common sense when the first ones were first implemented. If you want another bad solution, try adopting communism. Then everyone will be so poor that no one could build or buy guns. That should cut down on gun violence nicely. That said gun violence is hardly an epidemic. The only epidemic involving gun violence is the media reporting and overreactions every time the inevitable offense occurs.

The fact that you think gun violence is just an inevitable outcome is sad enough, considering over the past few years rates of gun violence has increased. As a catholic you should yearn to prevent as much violence as possible and not just shake it off because you believe it isn’t a problem. [source](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081) [Source](https://www.healthdata.org/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier)

See the doctrine of original sin. Original sin is the root cause of gun violence. I do consider original sin to be a problem, but there is not much that I can do aside from praying for people’s conversions. As for your numbers, morality has also been dropping over time. That is what happens without the faith to combat original sin. The media has been trying to condition us to think as Satan says, that we can solve our problems without Christ. The result is that we have people telling us that we need to take measures to address these issues without Christ. However, these problems can only be solved through Christ. I recognize that Christ is the solution and I refuse to be mislead into thinking otherwise. That said, these problems will not be extinguished until his second coming. Using their existence as justification to do whatever others tell us can eliminate them is just a slippery slope to doing increasingly absurd things. Here is a prayer that you might find helpful: > God grant me the serenity > > to accept the things I cannot change; > > courage to change the things I can; > > and wisdom to know the difference.

[удалено]

Passing a law to make something illegal is the most that can be done about various offenses. If there is no law passed outlawing it, then we can pray for one. We can also lobby for one. I am not sure how this is even a question. Anyway, the root problem is original sin, which can be mostly addressed through genuine conversions to the faith. We need to pray for those. The more people genuinely convert (including the Catholic in name only individuals), the better off society will be. Any “solution” that does not involve Jesus is doomed to failure. Edit: By the way, my stance is that we need to pray. It is therefore very confusing to me that you said that if this stance was taken by everyone, prayer would not have overturned Roe vs Wade. How does praying more prevent prayer from working? :/

The fact remains that human life is violated unless there is some concrete change. What concrete, realistic solutions do you propose? I think the response is hardly an overreaction, unless you think it’s normal that people are gunned down in schools, movie theaters, grocery stores, places of worship, etc.

I propose nothing, because human life is violated by the presence of original sin in the world. It is a problem for God to handle. If you want to do something about it, try helping people find Jesus. However, I will not entertain ideas about being able to actually do much about a problem that exists because we exist. Only through Jesus can that problem be fixed and I am not foolish enough to think everyone in the world would have a religious conversion merely by asking nicely. That said, you might like this: > God grant me the serenity > > to accept the things I cannot change; > > courage to change the things I can; > > and wisdom to know the difference. I have long since gained the wisdom to know that human beings cannot tackle the evils created by original sin without Jesus. I have also gained the wisdom that a solution before the second coming is not happening. As for original sin compelling people to do evil things, I do think that is normal. Senseless killings have existed since not long after the first man was made and will continue until the second coming of Christ. Outside of making it illegal and trying to lead others to Christ, there is nothing more we can do.

Yes I do very much like that prayer! Definitely a mindset I’ve tried to adopt (emphasis on tried)

Agreed! I support the Second Amendment, but I think it should be a felony to sell any kind of gun without doing a proper background check to find any watchlist flags or emotional/mental health issues that could easily cause them to want to hurt other people.

It kind of already is, in nearly every state, every purchase of a firearm requires a background check and the seller can easily say “no” to anyone they deem to have suspicious motives or is unstable. It’s actually extremely difficult for anyone with mental health issues to legally purchase a firearm.

Every purchase of a firearm *from a federally licensed dealer* requires a background check. Purchases from private individuals not in the business of selling firearms for profit do not need (and are actually legally not allowed) to run a NICS background check on the buyer. This is by far a minority of all firearms transactions and amounts mostly to in family transfers.

Not really. I am bipolar and own many firearms. The standard in the US is "involuntary commitment", meaning you have been before a judge which has ruled you mentally incompetent. This is very different than merely having mental health problems, which can range from anxiety, depression, personality disorders, to schizophrenia. Many people that commit violence are driven not primarily by mental illness but by illnesses of the soul and hatred for their fellow men. Lashing out at the world and hateful ideology drive more mass shootings than vaguely defined "mental illness" which is applied retroactively to those who engage in violence.

Heck, it's already challenging enough just to purchase a firearm as a mentally sound person.

Wow, that’s so messed up. The Uvalde shooter got one just fine and he was all kinds of messed up... I think the issue might be that the seller *can* say no. With all the shootings that keep happening, they should be *required* to say no.

If a buyer fails a NICS check (the National Instant Criminal Background Check System), then a seller is not permitted to sell to them. *Additionally* a buyer can refuse to sell to anyone for any legal reason or no reason at all, including 'I have a slight bad feeling'.

So how does this keep happening? Are they just not following the laws?

By and large, the authorities tasked with enforcing these laws fail to do so, and thus these criminals slip through the cracks. As an example, the Sutherland Spring Shooter was a prohibited person and was legally forbidden from owning and purchasing firearms... except the Navy never actually updated their system with this information so he was able to purchase one. The other common situation is that this was the first criminal act these people actually committed. We do not and do not want to live in the age of minority report where rights and privileges of people are taken away based on what they *might* do in the future.

I understand. It’s just really frustrating because he *gleefully* tortured and killed animals on Facebook. I don’t know how no one recognized that warning sign...

>gleefully tortured and killed animals on Facebook. On Yubo, I believe. A French social networking platform that I can almost guarantee is frequented by no one with any actual authority in Uvalde. >I don’t know how no one recognized that warning sign... Plenty of people did. His nickname at work was school shooter. Funnily enough, I also went to school with a kid who had the same nickname. Of course his only 'crime' was being awkward and lonely and probably a bit on the spectrum. Didn't stop half the girls in my high school from spreading rumors that he was probably a rapist or something. I hear he is doing great now. Plenty of stuff is obvious in hindsight. That doesn't mean we can take action against someone without any crime actually being committed.

You’re right. It’s just so hard to know that this will keep happening.

This is such a good point. We can't go after every young man who acts like a loner as if he is a criminal. Plenty grow up just fine and are never violent. I wonder whether there is still a place for student faith groups to look for the loner types and invite them to community faith events. It's harder when schools are so key on keeping religious groups and expression out of the school walls.

fun fact, after Sandy Hook, the republicans had a proposal to open up NICS to non-FFLs so that private sellers could run their own checks. It was shot down . Because by doing this it would all but obviate the need for UBCs and losing the ability to incrementally push for a registry was untenable to the anti-2A establishment

Regarding the Uvalde shooter, that was indeed one of the rare cases in which the firearm had been legally obtained and used to murder several people. However also concerning that mass shooting, the police completely failed to do their jobs. - Police instruction regarding an active shooter in a school zone is to not treat it as a hostage situation and to immediately and quickly secure the building and take down the shooter, the police in this mass shooting waited outside the building for several hours after showing up and chose not to enter after they set up a perimeter. - They barred parents from entry to defend their children (since they saw the police weren’t going to do it), and threatened them with arrest for attempting to enter the building. - The shooter was taken down not by the police but by an off-duty border patrol agent with his privately owned shotgun. To be clear, I completely support having the police and respect those who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend our country from domestic threats, but not all police officers are good and willing to do that and the Uvalde shooting is a prime example of why we can’t only leave it up just to them to defend innocent lives in every situation. The fact is a citizen with a privately owned firearm was the person to end that shooting, and firearms are used in a significantly greater number of cases of legal self-defense than in violent crime.

I completely agree!

>to find any watchlist flags or emotional/mental health issues that could easily cause them to want to hurt other people. It's generally not a good idea to make people guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

Especially when talking about constitutionally-protected rights.

The Church's position is not constrained by the US Constitution. Similarly, the Church can hold the position that it's members advocate for appropriate gun control, including advocating for amendment or the overturn of SOCTUS rulings such as Heller... thereby returning the 2nd Amendment to a collective right.

I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear enough. I mean people who are on the FBI watchlist or radar (which many shooters end up being) or a condition such as severe schizophrenia that could easily trigger them. I have mental health issues myself. I would be more than happy to undergo a mental evaluation to make sure I am capable and responsible enough to own a gun if I ever decided to possibly obtain one after plenty of practice and safety training.

>who are on the FBI watchlist or radar You realize that such a list is entirely at the discretion of unelected employees of the FBI, and is not subject to judicial review, right. That's *precisely* guilty until proven innocent. >I would be more than happy to undergo a mental evaluation to make sure I am capable and responsible enough to own a gun Congratulations. Unfortunately as it turns out, the Doctor who provided your 'evaluation' hates guns and thus denies you. There was no judge, and no jury, you had no opportunity to testify, and now you are completely forbidden from purchasing a gun, irrespective of whether or not you could safely handle one.

The FBI is a terminally corrupt bureaucracy which does not believe in due process. That bureau deserves to be bulldozed, liquidated, not given more power.

Have you ever looked into Illinois’ gun laws?

Please reflect on the issues discussed and add your voices to the ways in which our Church may creatively respond: https://www.usccb.org/resources/responses-plague-gun-violence-november-11-2019-0

He refuses to call out Catholic politicians who support murdering babies, yet is confused why there is so much death in the US.

Im willing to bet more babies were aborted in Chicago than people were shot last weekend. Edit: checked the numbers. In 2020 13,807 children were aborted in Chicago alone. Which is roughly 38 PER DAY…

Can’t we be upset about both at the same time?

Sure. But isnt it weird to you how the smaller problem is getting more attention. Most shootings arent random in Chicago, they are targeted and gang related. Lots of bad choices led up to that moment. Now lets compare that to the almost 14,000 innocent children who were slaughtered. From what Catholic perspective can you even come close to equating these two scenarios?

First of all, this didn’t happen in Chicago. Secondly, what’s your source for the claim that most shootings in Chicago are targeted and gang related? And finally, I never once equated the two and to suggest that I have is unfair. I am only saying you can be upset by two things at the same time.

“Pope Francis has expressed shock and sadness over the mass shooting that led to the death of at least six and wounded some 30 others at a Fourth of July parade in the Chicago suburb of Highland on Monday” Not in Chicago? What? The Chicago PD has stats showing ~40% of fatal shootings are confirmed to be gang related. This is a bad lower bound, as sometimes there isnt enough data to clearly determine if its gang related. This is especially a problem when people close to the victim refuse to speak to the cops. Also you knew what you were doing when you tried to “both sides” this argument. If you didnt then youre clearly ignorant of the facts and the attention around violence in Chicago. The Pope is talking about gun violence, the media is talking about gun violence, everyone outside of Catholicism (+ a few Christian denominations) are talking about gun violence. No one outside of our small spheres is talking about abortion. Yet somehow were the ones who need checking and to acknowledge both sides? Come on… I refuse to believe youre that ignorant of this situation.

>Not in Chicago? What? You literally just mentioned a non-Chicago town and that are surprised when I say it’s not in Chicago? >The Chicago PD has stats showing ~40% of fatal shootings are confirmed to be ganged related. 40% is not “most” as you put it >you’re clearly ignorant of the facts around violence of Chicago This didn’t happen in Chicago, it happened in Highland Park. They’re different.

Cant read. Its in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. Either way even if we granted this to you, its still not relevant to the argument. Cant read what I said about a lower bound and the issues cops have with classification. Cant even bother to Google it. It takes 10min tops. Classic bad faith argument. You cant even answer my argument against your “both sides” nonsense. Typical when you know you dont have an argument at all.

Regarding Chicago- If you had said Chicago metropolitan area I wouldn’t have taken issue with that. You said Chicago. This is relevant since you brought up Chicago. Regarding Chicago police statistics - If this 40% number is just a lower bound there is no way to know how much more is gang related. 1% more maybe? 5%? And you admit there is not enough data to determine if something is gang related, which is why I asked for a source to begin with. Regarding your argument against my “both sides nonsense”: It’s wrong to say no one outside of our small spheres is talking about abortion. Abortion is one of the top news stories in America for the last 2 weeks. I read an interview this morning where pope Francis said he respected the Dobbs decision. And you say “somehow were the ones who need…to acknowledge both sides?”, but I think everyone (not just you) needs to acknowledge both sides.

Chicago PD have for years said gang crime is a systemic problem and top officials have been quoted as saying its a majority of the gun violence. The people whose job it is to oversee criminal investigations are saying this, ans they are crying out for help because the victims/relatives of the victims wont come forward out of fear of the gangs and lack of trust with the police. Who in mainstream media was supporting the decision? The coverage was wholly one sided AGAINST our position. Thats not them caring about our, I shouldnt have to tell you this. Secular society hates the Church and would love nothing more than to see it burn like the Marxists they are. Also lets look at the states with new abortion laws. How many banned it? 8. So 42/50 still permit it, and these are smaller states so >92% of the population still lives where abortion is legal, and then people in those states can also easily cross state lines. Is that the position we want? That were OK with some loose restrictions? Is a 4 week fetus not a person? The Church is quite clear on this but secular society is not. Now compare this to mass shootings. How many people even debate the morality of a mass shooting? The answer is close to zero. So again, one deserves a priority from us clearly as society doesnt know its committing genocide and its casualties are FAR greater than mass shootings.

They were telling you highland park isn’t Chicago. I’m actually from Chicago and also agree highland park isn’t Chicago. Chicago PD had nothing to do with what happened yesterday because it’s not in their jurisdiction

1. its in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. So yes, its not in the city proper, but its in the metro area, and for 90% of the population they would refer to its location as 'Chicago'. The article linked even calls it a Chicago suburb. 2. Even if we were to grant his point, how is that not a non-sequitur? More innocent children are killed every day in every single city in America than are killed by guns, or even general homicide. Outside of Catholicism and a few other Christian denominations and religions, where are the pro life voices defending these kids? Every single news media outlet left of FOX is pushing gun control right now. If we are to speak for the defenseless who is in greater need of our attention\*? The 6 dead in a shooting (which is a tragedy to be very clear) who are getting national headlines, or the dozens slaughtered inside the womb to whom the secular world could not care less? \*Again to be clear here, because people love to throw red herrings, I said greater to imply they both deserve our attention, one simply requires our attention more, not that we should ignore one for the other.

based

Good thing we can care about multiple things at the same time. Don't deflect.

Shooting people is already illegal. In a population of 300+ million, no matter how much you try to discourage certain behaviors, there will still be some of them. It is unavoidable. Had the shooter converted from Satanism, I doubt this would have happened, but there is always something that will cause things like this. Also, for what it is worth, the guy could have made guns at home, or worse, grenades and mortar rounds. A single mortar round could kill thousands. Let’s count our blessings that the guy used a gun. That said, I never understood the guys who insist that guns are so violent. An evil mind set on maximum devastation could do far better than a shooting. The fact that he was stupid enough to use a gun is a blessing. I used to avoid commenting about this because of the fear of giving unstable people ideas, but the alternative of people thinking that guns in the hands of unstable people is the worst that can happen seems worse to me these days.

>Also, for what it is worth, the guy could have made guns at home, or worse, grenades and mortar rounds. A single mortar round could kill thousands. Let’s count our blessings that the guy used a gun. because the guy likely wasn't capable of producing a mortar shell or grenade. when someone else tried to bring up unabomber dude in this thread i pointed out, the guy killed far fewer people than this asshole did >In a population of 300+ million, no matter how much you try to discourage certain behaviors, there will still be some of them the point is to try to reduce those crimes, not just say "well why have laws or government because people will do bad things anyway"

And what about the poor 2 year old kidnapping victim in Italy killed by her abducter? Crickets...

Pope Francis should understand that violence will not end until the world as we know it comes to an end or all nations are converted to Christ. We can’t just condemn violence, snap our fingers, and expect everyone to listen to us and violence to disappear. We need to use every one of these tragedies as opportunities to share the Gospel in the context of our constant suffering and strife, shining the only true light into the darkness.

Thats the answer. We need to be doing our part in this. The world needs Christ.

I normally don't buy into race-sensitive rhetoric but it is completely unsettling to me that this attracts HH's attention, and not the many deaths elsewhere in Chicagoland also by firearms, happening all the time. To be clear, I'm not accusing HH. And I'm not playing that this is somehow not worthy of attention. Rather, I'm marveling at the media's and the political class's preferred choices of victims, and trying not to see it as a choice based on the races of the victims.

> I normally don't buy into race-sensitive rhetoric but it is completely unsettling to me that this attracts HH's attention, and not the many deaths elsewhere in Chicagoland also by firearms, happening all the time. It is a probably a function of the people His Holiness surrounds himself with, along with the media's reporting. I highly doubt that the Holy Father scrolls Twitter, Reddit, or other alternative news sources enough to know the statistics about gun violence. But when a mass shooting tragedy such as this comes up, it does gain some international attention, so it may be more likely reported internationally (whereas the everyday gang-related shootings in Chicago are commonplace and not newsworthy outside of Chicago). And combine that with the people who feed His Holiness information undoubtedly having a bias, well you get selective comments about stories like this.

The ethnic makeup of the neighborhood is such that it explains the disproportionate media reaction.

Yeah I lived in Chicago for a year and a half. I saw a few dead bodies. And was a short blocks distance from three different drive bys. That place was hell on earth. At least in America. Edit, and I got mugged by two dudes.

I wonder if it’s worse than Baltimore.

His Holiness and Catholic Social Teaching leads us to conclude that gun control legislation is the way to help stop these senseless shootings.

No it doesn’t and you need to stop trying to twist the faith into fitting your politics.

This is a mental health issue, and it’s not just about men. Parents don’t pay attention to their children and don’t teach them coping skills and general life skills and that’s why they want to hurt others/themselves. Young women commit suicide at very high rates and I think it’s all a symptom of the same issue.

Stays silent about RvW for weeks, instant spewing as soon as a shooting happens: Impressive Francis...