Its not. In fact it highlights the extent of failure of local government on a variety of levels (not just murder)

The operative word-set here is "...is reported..." Thousands of events happen every day that would be on interest to many of us, but only a handful are "reported" to the general population. That is how the media manipulate us, perhaps less so by how they present an event than what events they choose to report, or not to. That is why the internet and a little curiosity are so important for their effectiveness in informing the electorate.

Isn't it wonderful how well gun control has worked in Chicago????????????

I'll applaud any article that brings attention to Chicago's shameful murder rate. You're statistically safer in Beirut than in Chicago. When I see Rahm Emmanuel's smarmy smile as he defends his city as a sanctuary for illegals, I think, "Sanctuary from what? They were probably safer from wherever they came than there.

Notoriety, Celebrity, name recognition and so called self importance.
I guess we are supposed to automatically respect these people.

Are you less likely to be murdered if you are related to someone 'important'? The reason for reporting is to gain more notoriety (not fame) for the desires of those who would offer more control. When guns were unavailable because they did not exist governments made it illegal for individuals to own swords for the same reason. To control the populace. The congressman is a influence peddler trying to use his grandson's unfortunate incident to promote his ability to control the populace.

It is interesting that the places with the strictest gun control also seem to be the places with the most gun murders.

The leftists circle their wagons, as if being in government was some sort of honor. It isnt.

The killers were shoe-ists, which makes it all the worse.

Might be the worst horrific for the boy's parents. Likely to be shrugged off by the politicians, particularly those from Chicago. Crassly, there is somethiing to be said for making it personal for the lawmakers and lawbreakers.

Good question. I wonder the same thing when there is a mass killing. There is always a big deal made of it and I can't help but think, what about the guy or gal down the street that was killed. I think the answer is they cannot make political hay out of the unknown.

It is no worse than anyone else being murdered. I just always hope that when something like this happens to someone in power, they might feel inclined to do their job of protecting the people better. The murders happen, but what are we going to do to dissuade the criminals? Check out "the social gene" as explained by Richard Dawkins.

Horror, no. Expected, yes.
The obvious result of the combination of extreme gun control laws, socialistic economic policies and entitlement indoctrination. Add in the lunacy of trying the same things over and over again and expecting different results, and you have this example of a Democrat Utopia.

This isn't about the one life over the 600, it was over shoes and not drug territory. We consider drugs/gangs a self inflected injury if you participate in it.
Being killed over shoes is a senseless murder. Being killed over gang activity is the price of playing poker.

It is only noted because of who he was. That is what made this rise to the point of notoriety, otherwise it is unremarkable.

In the land where we are all supposed to be equal, why is there greater outrage, and penalties for crimes against police? More vigorous investigations and prosecutions? Why must I pull into the next lane when police are on the shoulder, but not for my fellow citizen traveler? Higher fines for injuring road workers? Why do we hear about every Kardashian's broken nail, while untold multitudes of average Joes build the world in obscurity? Who is John Galt?
AJAshinioff is right. It's not!

Most crime involves criminals attacking other criminals because they tend to know criminals and as criminals they cannot have the authorities resolve their disputes. To avoid ruminating about a random peril, people imagine crime almost never happens to law-abiding citizens carrying nothing of significant value. When they hear it's a congressman's grandson, they imagine (whether facts support it or not) that he's likely not involved in violent crime.

When something affects our life in a big way, we like to think there is a big cause. We shudder to think a random mutation of DNA or deranged criminal could kill us. We imagine the other 600 murders were drug deals shooting one another or maybe people carrying large cash drops to the bank, not people who we might identify with being murder for random reasons.

Why indeed?

It shows that no one is safe, at least unless he goes around armed.