I’m an American who regularly visits Chicago, and i was really confused by the “dog whistle” comments. And I’m still not clear what it’s supposed to be a dog whistle for. Prohibition-fueled gangsters? Black people?
I also think it’s perfectly reasonable to refer to anything in greater Chicagoland as “Chicago” or “Chicago area”, or “Chicago suburb”.
I think it is that Chicago is a deep blue (politically) city so conservatives love to point to the violence and claim that is what liberalism gets you. Add in gun control so you cannot protect yourself from the bad guys running rampant through the city.
Certainly Chicago needs to do better but, then, so do so many cities, red or blue, across the country.
Of course, the shooter bought his guns legally. So my political reaction was to think of all the bozos who assure me i don’t have to worry about legal guns.
Which confirms what I said. Michael Jordan had mostly displaced Al Capone, but there were still references to Al Capone. I remember volunteering at a camp in Slovenia in 1996, and a Bosnian refugee was a lifeguard there. He asked me where I was from. I said Chicago. He said “Chicago? Are you not afraid to live there? Boom boom? Al Capone?” A guy who escaped the Yugoslav war. So the reputation of Chicago as a violent city was still well established at that point.
Nevermind
I think Chicago’s reputation goes back to prohibition.
Think St. Valentines day massacre, and the Chicago typewriter (Thompson sub-machine gun)
Yes, but that’s not what makes it a dog-whistle.
GOP media says: Chicago.
GOP “dogs” hear: Corrupt socialist city full of black and brown people with ultra-high murder rates that prove gun laws don’t work.
Frankly, I am surprised that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental health disorders does not list fascination with assault style weapons as a sign of mental health issues. (It would seem to me, and this is not an area where I am very well versed, that a level of paranoia that includes an urgent need to own and to carry military style weapons might suggest well-- paranoia. And yes, I realize that statement is guilty of the fallacy of begging the question.)
Perhaps if mental health professional did many studies of those who owned exclusively military style assault weapons vs. those who own more traditional hunting weapons like shotguns and big game rifles (yes, every scope sighted rifle “could” be described as a form of sniper rifle- but use the correct terminology to distinguish the genuine break between the two styles) and study traits like reliability, personal integrity, acceptance of reality, mouth breathing, etc. It just seems obvious to me, and I know plenty of people in both categories, that those “traditional” gun owners (who may own one or two rifles in their collection of genuine sporting rifles that may be described, only somewhat accurately, as military style) to those who own exclusively camo-patterned, fully military style assault rifles – They would find a vast difference in the mental health stability of the two groups. Similar studies might also be conducted on those with access to high numbers of sidearms with high capacity magazines in the most notorious calibers (9mm, .40cal., .45cal.) as opposed to those who own almost exclusively .22 caliber plinkers would find similar results. It is likely the deadly sidearm group might have significant overlap with the assault style rifle group, while the plinker group might overlap with the sporting rifle group. I admit many gun owners may fall into both groups.
I only mention it because POLITICALLY, it may make the job of sincere politicians who want to reduce and/or eliminate gun violence easier if they can point to scientific evidence that states or suggests even the desire to own one of those killing machines is evidence the person should not be trusted with it.
This is important because the right’s whole argument is that : “It isn’t the guns themselves, it is the very few crazy people who shouldn’t have them.” If solid evidence arrives that states even wanting to own that style of weapon is an indicator that the person should not be allowed access to it might make a difference. I am sure there are plenty of good citizens who own assault style weapons and are neither unstable nor dangerous. But I am also sure there are enough who do have questionable stability to make a significant difference. Were those studies undertaken, it might convince Congress that a mental health review should be required for anyone at any age who desires to own any AR-15 style weapon.
Pertaining to Highland Park specifically, it is a sad tragedy that proves that as a whole society, we have still not learned a very obvious lesson. Perhaps we need the help of mental health professionals to help us learn the lesson of cause and effect.
I don’t think it would accomplish much in the way of legislation. The right wing does not care about scientific evidence. There’s no amount of data from any such study that would move the needle, and that’s IF the data even bears out your hypothesis, which is not a given.
Thank you for the reply, you may very well be right. I do think it is worth making a study.
In fact, it would take hundreds of studies each with many participants to be able to draw any meaningful conclusions. Of course every journey starts with a single step and all that, but I do believe the results would be . . . interesting, and perhaps revealing.
Missed the edit window, but want to add-
Some further observations that will undoubtedly be WAY off topic:
Right wing voters are not as theoretical to me as they might be to you. They are my neighbors and my family and occasionally my very dearest friends and sometimes the only ones I can rely upon in an emergency. They are not as monolithic as they seem from a distance although the tribal traits are obvious across most of them. I am fairly confident that if you could get any of the non control group to participate in an study- the results would be much as I describe (but that is why they do studies, to know for sure). I certainly may be mistaken.
What I am saying is that military assault rifle owners are more likely to be paranoid, delusional, and aggressive than more traditional gun owners in the same way that people with many, many huge Trump flags on their lifted trucks are more likely to run the opposition’s campaign bus off the road than say a mid-level sedan with a Trump 2020 sticker, over a Trump 2016 sticker, over a Romney 2012 sticker, over a McCain 2008 sticker, etc.
Even if the studies did not lead to legislation, it might lead to law enforcement not returning confiscated weapons as frequently and nonchalantly as they do now and that might save a few lives too. I believe it is worth studying and the results might be spectacular if the right accepts them or not.
Speaking of which, I’m surprised there hasn’t been an anti-trans narrative too since the shooter dressed himself up as a woman to get away. I can easily picture conservatives twisting that into some tale of how the shooter’s gender confusion led him to fire into a crowd.
For some reason, the Fox News crowd have decided to blame antidepressants this time.
Well…
Full title: Why the far-right is desperate to push false claims that recent mass shooters were trans
And Tucker was blaming bossy women. Crimo had to go shoot up people. because women are bossing white men around. I guess the fact that Crimo didn’t appear to have any women in his life isn’t a problem for this theory.
For a couple of decades starting in 1996, the Dickey Amendment stifled research into the causes of gun violence.
My understanding is that federal dollars are not to be spent on any gun control (or potential gun control) research. There must be some privately funded research labs?? Although any University would be out it seems if they receive federal funds. Thank you for the reply.
How much planning do these acts need, anyway? For some reason, this reminded me of a terrorist attack many years ago. (From memory) somebody threw a hand grenade into a Greek discotheque, and for days afterward there were images of terrorist training camps, always showing the guys swinging on monkey bars, and rushing through darkened doorways. I just don’t see the complexity in these things requiring much aforethought.
ISTM the “aforethought” is figuring how to get away after committing the crime (i.e. not getting arrested or killed). If the crime is heinous enough (as in Highland Park) then the police will work very hard to find you and your chances are not good. I generally have a low opinion of police solving random crimes but when they want to, if they bend their whole will to catching you, then you (general “you”) have little chance of evading arrest.
It takes little thought to lob a grenade. Not ending up in jail or dead by police is the real trick.