One wonders if whatever was wrong in his brain connections that would lead him to do something like this, would even show up on a psych exam. I expect it'll come out that he was a loner, played video games for hours and hours every day, had few if any friends, had issues with his parents etc. There are probably millions of young kids like that in the U.S. today. How do we know which ones will pull the trigger?
Agreed. But that's what I don't get about the vetting process for gaming as a 'solution'. You claim he would've not been spotted by the system in place for guns, then why would he have been spotted by the vetting process for the tournament?
By now I understand that vetting people to own weapons got it's drawbacks. But then I don't understand how th vetting process for entering the tourney would've.
I think the game and the competitive element might bring out the worst in a person, especially with someone who is teetering on doing something bad.
So in a normal situation this guy might not have posed a threat owning a gun but this competition brought out aggression which may have lead this outcome.
His right to own a weapon is separate from the circumstances that it was used in because there appears to be no red flags other than those previously seen in his behaviour in other tournaments. Competitive gaming seems to change him therefore he should be vetted to compete in them.
Don't get me wrong, I think they should tightly control who they give guns to but this appears to be very much a case of a person that should not be competiting in something that enrages them when they lose.
Shouldn't not having such a person own a gun be the correct answer?
Ooh no he's not dangerous as long as he keeps his temper. What if he got in a traffic incident? He'd be a liability with a gun in that scenario. So if we then continu the logic proposed he should be vetted for that too. And if we continue with all the things making him more dangerous it probably would be more efficient (and imo more correct) to do the vetting process for buying the gun?
I don't accept him owning a gun is not an issue as long as he wouldn't game competetivly.
As for personal experience (which is interesting but worthless as evidence): I'm a very competetive person when playing (sports/games) I'm bad at accepting a loss when I lost it due to not being on my game.
I'll walk out after the game and get some fresh air to process my disapointment. I'd be ok with not owning a gun, I wouldn't with not being able to play competive games. They're my outlet. I never hit someone, I don't become agressive but you can see I'm mad as hell and I prefer to be alone for a few minutes.
I don't have this every loss, like I said it's when I'm dissapointed in my own performance. But would I be a person you'd stop from gaming? If yes why? Why limit my freedom? I don't harm someone I'm just agrevated due to disapointment.
