Mass shooting at Madden tournament in Jacksonville

[TetsuKobura]

It's a bit of a grey area, but the law (judges) is turning towards allowing it in extreme cases of self defense. We had a case not so long ago where a jewelry store was robbed by armed guys. The owners had an illegal gun, his wife saw in a backroom on camera images that the robbery was going on and that her husband was being attacked, she grabbed the gun and shot and killed 2 of the 3 robbers.

The wife was not charged with anything, she remained free, even though the weapon was not legal. The husband, who admitted he bought the gun precisely because of a situation like this, was charged with owning an illegal weapon, received 100 hours of community service and 4 months probation.

Welp, what could've been just a slap on the wrist turned into something ridiculous. At least they weren't put in jail, I guess. The question now becomes whether this type of defense applies to individuals as well.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The 2nd amendment is used as such that one always comes back to it with the principle that it can not be changed. I already gave the example of the 21 amendment repealing the 18th amendment. But to not be completely ignorant, I understand you need 2/3 of congress and the senate to pass such a repeal. And with the current political division between party lines, it would be impossible to get enough votes. But one can hope and try. The examples you gave were not on a national level.

How was Columbine not a national level issue? Which again happened during the Assault Weapon and High Capacity ban, how did OKC happen during same ban, how did the Beltway Snipers strike fear to an entire region for months during the same ban? Why is it said by experts that said ban had little impact due to stats showing similar trends before the ban and during the ban. Not to count the fact that only

As a european I am not versed in US law, so you are right I am ignorant in the details of state law and its implimentation. But as I stated I am trying to provide a somewhat outside view. I acknowledged that the problem is multi faceted and law enforcement (how background checks are handled and how gunlaws are implemented) and mental healthcare (disturbed people should be reckognised timely and treated). I choose to concentrate on the fact that there is an abnormal number of guns in the US. If you fail to see the connection between guns per capita and mass shootings with all the evidence there is. And not once do you ask how come do we have so many mass shootings, but other developed countries dont? The problem is so unique to the USA one really should explore the options by outside view. And I am not claiming this is the one solution or cut and dry. As stated the problem is multi faceted. My problem is a large portion choose to completely ignore this option and a smaller portion actually do acknowledge it.

Outside views don't really help, because they're just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks type mentalities. I have no idea of the immigration laws of Europe compared to here, thus as an outsider I keep my mouth shut and stay away from the thread in relation to that. Now I'm not suggesting you do that because I do it with similar hot topic threads. I'm just suggesting if you plan to contribute without having your posts dissected in a way that they're called out for being ignorant, perhaps educate yourself a bit?

You keep saying abnormal, because you've deemed it such in relation to your country. Have you looked up other countries as I've said prior who are just as modern and have vast gun ownership? The Swiss have a 1 to 4 ratio with guns in relation to private ownership. Finland is another country well known for gun ownership and high per capita, Canada is another country with a decently sized gun ownership, based on their cultural roots in hunting and sportsmanship. So clearly there is a problem among people in this Nation (U.S.) compared to others. Which many of us have explained in great detail what those things are. We've also explained that while to you Mass shootings are frequent they are but a tiny portion of deaths in the U.S. and violent crimes. And have been for years according to the FBI and DOJ. I don't ask why our country has mass shooting and others don't, I ask why we have such a saturated violent crime rate in general. I ask this because a kid dying from gun fire exchange between gang members while walking home from a park is just as important as the kid killed at an esports tournament.

What you've done though is neglected the kid shot walking home. The woman shot by her abusive boyfriend. Or even then gang on gang shootings and general violence. And said "mass shootings are the issue of importance here". You've claimed it is based on the thread. Which is strange because this isn't the mass shooting thread, this is a thread talking about a very troubled individual taking out his anger on fellow people and committing a crime.

I do know somewhat about guns ( I am a fan of westerns) and I miswrote. I dont need to do additional research to know it. I dont remember a single action revolver being used in a mass shootings. My mistake was there were not any single action guns available at the time of writing the contitution.

Being a western fan doesn't mean you know about guns. And yes there were single action during the signing and writing of the constitution there were also people developing guns beyond those method used during the revolutionary war. In fact those guns soon came to see battle after. It wasn't even 100 years later that gatling guns, civil war rockets and iron clad ships were roaming battles. Again this idea that because they weren't around the founders couldn't perceive technology evolving is an insult to those framers really.

Again you ignore the fact that these weapons aren't given out, that law abiding citizens have to purchase guns, have to have a background check. If people wish to own certain other weapons and items they have to have a Class 3 license which is more strict. Those who wish to purchase a firearm (like in other countries you used as an example), without have a background check each time, must get a concealed weapons permit. I wouldn't have to repeat any of this if you accepted it in the first place and/or researched it yourself. The only issue in situations like the one this thread is based on is the fact that a background check should have never failed had the information been correctly placed to stop the criminal from getting said weapon(s).

 

[PocketZeven]

Can it be used in your home for self-defense? Say it's properly stored, you have all your classes/permits and someone kicked in your door, could you use the gun in self-defense and if not what charges could be filed?

You are not allowed to own a gun for self defence. With some exceptions this has not been an issue.

How was Columbine not a national level issue? Which again happened during the Assault Weapon and High Capacity ban, how did OKC happen during same ban, how did the Beltway Snipers strike fear to an entire region for months during the same ban? Why is it said by experts that said ban had little impact due to stats showing similar trends before the ban and during the ban. Not to count the fact that only



Outside views don't really help, because they're just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks type mentalities. I have no idea of the immigration laws of Europe compared to here, thus as an outsider I keep my mouth shut and stay away from the thread in relation to that. Now I'm not suggesting you do that because I do it with similar hot topic threads. I'm just suggesting if you plan to contribute without having your posts dissected in a way that they're called out for being ignorant, perhaps educate yourself a bit?

You keep saying abnormal, because you've deemed it such in relation to your country. Have you looked up other countries as I've said prior who are just as modern and have vast gun ownership? The Swiss have a 1 to 4 ratio with guns in relation to private ownership. Finland is another country well known for gun ownership and high per capita, Canada is another country with a decently sized gun ownership, based on their cultural roots in hunting and sportsmanship. So clearly there is a problem among people in this Nation (U.S.) compared to others. Which many of us have explained in great detail what those things are. We've also explained that while to you Mass shootings are frequent they are but a tiny portion of deaths in the U.S. and violent crimes. And have been for years according to the FBI and DOJ. I don't ask why our country has mass shooting and others don't, I ask why we have such a saturated violent crime rate in general. I ask this because a kid dying from gun fire exchange between gang members while walking home from a park is just as important as the kid killed at an esports tournament.

What you've done though is neglected the kid shot walking home. The woman shot by her abusive boyfriend. Or even then gang on gang shootings and general violence. And said "mass shootings are the issue of importance here". You've claimed it is based on the thread. Which is strange because this isn't the mass shooting thread, this is a thread talking about a very troubled individual taking out his anger on fellow people and committing a crime.



Being a western fan doesn't mean you know about guns. And yes there were single action during the signing and writing of the constitution there were also people developing guns beyond those method used during the revolutionary war. In fact those guns soon came to see battle after. It wasn't even 100 years later that gatling guns, civil war rockets and iron clad ships were roaming battles. Again this idea that because they weren't around the founders couldn't perceive technology evolving is an insult to those framers really.

Again you ignore the fact that these weapons aren't given out, that law abiding citizens have to purchase guns, have to have a background check. If people wish to own certain other weapons and items they have to have a Class 3 license which is more strict. Those who wish to purchase a firearm (like in other countries you used as an example), without have a background check each time, must get a concealed weapons permit. I wouldn't have to repeat any of this if you accepted it in the first place and/or researched it yourself. The only issue in situations like the one this thread is based on is the fact that a background check should have never failed had the information been correctly placed to stop the criminal from getting said weapon(s).

I am really offended you even suggest that I "neglect" other kids being killed. I am posting here in the context of the OP. If I post about the 2nd world war, would you suggest I am neglecting other wars? If I post about Sandy hook specifically would you even suggest I am neglecting other shootings. This isnt a thread about overall homicide or violent crime. That occurs as well in other countries too. I already explained multiple times Mass shootings (or Killings with a gun) is a uniquely american problem. Why I take issue with this specifically is that it more often then not involves random innocent children. If you dont agree that it is uniquely american you can show me where I am wrong.

I already used switzerland as an example in another post. But even Finland and Switzerland dont come near to the USA with the amount of guns per capita. (45 vs 88). Both countries do have strict gun laws and weapon registration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Finland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland

I agree fully that current laws should be applied and enforced as well. Please read my other posts. How do you get the idea I think guns are given out? My whole proposition was to reduce the amount of guns, not banning them! Strict laws that are applied in some states should be applied on a national level. I dont disagree with your views at all. In essence I was proposing that guns should be a privilege and not a right. There are too many guns owned by people who arent law abiding, not mentally healthy enough, dont store them correctly or buying them for the wrong reasons.

I was referring to modern definition of single action guns. But you can classify muskets, flintlocks as single action weapons. So I was inaccurate again.

 

[Danoff]

You are not allowed to own a gun for self defence. With some exceptions this has not been an issue.

You have no crime?

 

[UKMikey]

You have no crime?

Not to the extent that anyone believes widespread gun ownership would reduce it, I'm guessing. Which societies have no crime?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

 

[Danoff]

Not to the extent that anyone believes widespread gun ownership would reduce it, I'm guessing. Which societies have no crime?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

I can see how you interpreted my response that way.

What I meant was, you have no one who was affected by their denied ability to defend themselves? Because even one example of a crime against a person who otherwise might have defended themselves is a transgression of their fundamental right to self defense. So literally one example is a transgression of the state.

 

[PocketZeven]

You have no crime?

Ofcourse we do. Just probably less. But why would I need a gun for protection in my country?

 

[Danoff]

Ofcourse we do. Just probably less. But why would I need a gun for protection in my country?

...because you have crime?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Ofcourse we do. Just probably less. But why would I need a gun for protection in my country?

If you're a woman or have a mother/sister/cousin/niece/friend or if you're just a human this might be concerning:

Or this:

Or this:

 

[PocketZeven]

...because you have crime?

That is what law enforcement is for. I dont see any reason for me to have a gun other then as a hobby or sport. There are <5 guns per 100 people here. If I ever get robbed, I will not risk my life for some money or possession, I got insurance for that. And to be honest I am not willing to kill someone who is robbing me for my wallet, tv or xbox.

Have you travelled to europe before?

If you're a woman or have a mother/sister/cousin/niece/friend or if you're just a human this might be concerning:
View attachment 764397
Or this:

View attachment 764398
Or this:
View attachment 764399

Rape is a problem here, but it is everywhere. But it isnt so much that women fear it in their daily lives.

And still there is zero discussion about legalising guns here. I dont think you understood the second one. It is the percentage of people who feel safe and not fear of crime. The last one is probably because there are perhaps more crimes reported per capita?

It is quite counter intuitive what you posted 19% more crime victims yet feel 9% safer then the USA.

edit: added response to @Johnnypenso

 

[Danoff]

That is what law enforcement is for.

I'm not willing to trust law enforcement to keep me completely safe. Especially when there is crime... meaning they can't do it.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm not willing to trust law enforcement to keep me completely safe. Especially when there is crime... meaning they can't do it.

You were asking about the situation in my country though. I do agree that your country probably also has a problem with law enforcement in some parts of the country. But visit europe some time when you have the chance.

 

[Danoff]

You were asking about the situation in my country though. I do agree that your country probably also has a problem with law enforcement in some parts of the country. But visit europe some time when you have the chance.

Do you have crime? Because if so (which you said you did), my statement stands.

 

[PocketZeven]

Do you have crime? Because if so (which you said you did), my statement stands.

Of course there is crime.

See @Johnnypenso 's source:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Netherlands/United-States/Crime

But in what situation would I need a gun in my country. The vast majority of criminals in my country dont have guns themselves.

 

[Danoff]

But in what situation would I need a gun in my country.

Your current situation? Because there is crime?

 

[MatskiMonk]

But in what situation would I need a gun in my country. The vast majority of criminals in my country dont have guns themselves.

To prevent an attacker of superior physical form from doing crime against you.

 

[PocketZeven]

Your current situation? Because there is crime?

How does owning a gun prevent crime for me? Does it seem so shocking?
Have you ever needed your guns? Or are they only there to feel safe?

To prevent an attacker of superior physical form from doing crime against you.

Then probably it would be much better to study martial arts.

 

[ImaRobot]

How does owning a gun prevent crime for me? Does it seem so shocking?

I dont have much to add to this discussion, but if the enforcement in place is doing it's job, wouldn't that effectively eliminate crime? If there's even a chance it's not, I would prefer to defend myself in the most straight forward way possible.

Then probably it would be much better to study martial arts.

Sure, if you're looking for a duel, rather than to outright survive I guess? If I was being attacked by someone with a knife, I'm not about to get into a choreographed knife fight, I'd rather just have a gun and make sure I have more a chance of surviving the event than the other guy.

 

[Danoff]

How does owning a gun prevent crime for me? Does it seem so shocking?

Does it need to? You don't seem to be following me.

Crime exists. This means police can't keep you completely safe. If you want additional safety, you can take personal responsibility for it. The fact that your additional steps may not necessarily confer perfect safety is immaterial. The question is whether you are going to take it upon yourself to take care of yourself beyond what law enforcement is capable of.

If crime exists, people may reasonably choose to take additional steps to take care of themselves. If that state bans the tools for doing so, those people have had their right to protect themselves infringed. It doesn't matter whether you would do it, or whether they would be perfect at it.

Then probably it would be much better to study martial arts.

Not really... martial arts will not make you as effective at protecting yourself as you-with-a-gun would be. It would be beneficial to learn to fight for when you don't have a gun on you. But it's super ineffective for the elderly or the frail (and the busy, and the lazy...).

 

[PocketZeven]

I dont have much to add to this discussion, but if the enforcement in place is doing it's job, wouldn't that effectively eliminate crime? If there's even a chance it's not, I would prefer to defend myself in the most straight forward way possible.


Sure, if you're looking for a duel, rather than to outright survive I guess? If I was being attacked by someone with a knife, I'm not about to get into a choreographed knife fight, I'd rather just have a gun and make sure I have more a chance of surviving the event than the other guy.

Most likely if you live in a country where civilians are allowed to carry guns for protection, the criminal will also have a gun. And if your attacked, your most likely too late to draw your gun. In my situation, I would give that person my money and wallet. I wouldnt risk my life for something trivial as money.

Does it need to? You don't seem to be following me.

Crime exists. This means police can't keep you completely safe. If you want additional safety, you can take personal responsibility for it. The fact that your additional steps may not necessarily confer perfect safety is immaterial. The question is whether you are going to take it upon yourself to take care of yourself beyond what law enforcement is capable of.

If crime exists, people may reasonably choose to take additional steps to take care of themselves. If that state bans the tools for doing so, those people have had their right to protect themselves infringed. It doesn't matter whether you would do it, or whether they would be perfect at it.



Not really... martial arts will not make you as effective at protecting yourself as you-with-a-gun would be. It would be beneficial to learn to fight for when you don't have a gun on you. But it's super ineffective for the elderly or the frail.

You ignored my questions.

How does owning a weapon protect you from being robbed when you arent home? Most home robberies are when the occupants arent home. How does owning a weapon prevent drugdealing? How does owning a gun prevent a guy from being scammed? How does owning a gun prevent being raped if you dont carry one all the time. You have weapons locked in a safe. How do they protect you from crime?

I have camera security, have good insurance and some basic martial arts knowledge. what else would I need?

On the other hand I would definately look for you when a war would start or a zombie apocalypse.

 

[Danoff]

Most likely if you live in a country where civilians are allowed to carry guns for protection, the criminal will also have a gun. And if your attacked, your most likely too late to draw your gun. In my situation, I would give that person my money and wallet. I wouldnt risk my life for something trivial as money.

Do you have violent crime? Honestly I feel like you're not actually trying to participate here.

You'd be better off in a situation where you and a criminal had a gun, than in a situation where you and a criminal had knives (unless you're a martial arts knife expert).

But once again, and I made this point earlier, the fact that people might abuse something is not a reason to deny its legal use. Everything can be abused.

 

[UKMikey]

If you're a woman or have a mother/sister/cousin/niece/friend or if you're just a human this might be concerning:
View attachment 764397
Or this:

View attachment 764398
Or this:
View attachment 764399

Owning a gun might make one feel slightly safer in the eyes of those respondents (assuming it's even a factor in what's causing their unease). I'm not sure whether it's a given that it'd actually make things safer though.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

 

[PocketZeven]

Do you have violent crime? Honestly I feel like you're not actually trying to participate here.

You'd be better off in a situation where you and a criminal had a gun, than in a situation where you and a criminal had knives (unless you're a martial arts knife expert).

But once again, and I made this point earlier, the fact that people might abuse something is not a reason to deny its legal use. Everything can be abused.

Yes ofcourse we do. But owning a gun would not help. Having trained professionals is a much better way to enforce the law then by doing it yourself.
A confrontation with a gun you are describing almost guarantees someone being fatally injured. The best way to handle is just give the person what they want.

I agree it is almost impossible to prevent. But reducing abuse from 100 to 10 or even 90 is reason enough to explore stricter laws.

edit: corrected sentence

 

[ImaRobot]

Most likely if you live in a country where civilians are allowed to carry guns for protection, the criminal will also have a gun.

That doesn't really change the fact that I'd prefer to have the most effective, legal, form of weapon available to me to ensure my survival. Hell, even if firearms were completely illegal and the armed crimes where still high, I think I'd prefer to own a illegal firearm just incase. I still think I'd have a better chance with a firearm, as not every single altercation is going to require you to be in close quarters.

I would give that person my money and wallet.

If you're that close, then it wouldn't matter if they had a gun, knife, rock, sharp stick, or some blunt weapon. If they have the drop on you, the weapon doesn't matter if you're unarmed. Your chances are already low at that point, and I would also prefer to give them my property than do something stupid at that close.

 

[PocketZeven]

That doesn't really change the fact that I'd prefer to have the most effective, legal, form of weapon available to me to ensure my survival. Hell, even if firearms were completely illegal and the armed crimes where still high, I think I'd prefer to own a illegal firearm just incase. I still think I'd have a better chance with a firearm, as not every single altercation is going to require you to be in close quarters.


If you're that close, then it wouldn't matter if they had a gun, knife, rock, sharp stick, or some blunt weapon. If they have the drop on you, the weapon doesn't matter if you're unarmed. Your chances are already low at that point, and I would also prefer to give them my property than do something stupid at that close.

I understand by owning a weapon makes you feel safe, but on the flipside you are forcing the criminals to arm as well. And note I am talking about the situation in my country and not USA.

 

[Danoff]

Yes ofcourse we do. But owning a gun would not help. Having trained professionals is a much better way to enforce the law then by doing it yourself.

It's not either or... it's both. The police are still required to come to my house if I call 911, even though I have guns.

The best way to handle is just give the person what they want.

Do you have violent crime? Do you have rape? Do you have murder?

A confrontation with a gun you are describing almost guarantees someone being fatally injured.

Owning a gun might make one feel slightly safer in the eyes of those respondents (assuming it's even a factor in what's causing their unease). I'm not sure whether it's a given that it'd actually make things safer though.

The statistics are very difficult to nail down, but the estimates for gun use in self defense in the US annually (including just showing a gun, or just making a shotgun pump noise) ranges from hundreds of thousands to millions of times per year.

 

[ryzno]

In my situation, I would give that person my money and wallet. I wouldnt risk my life for something trivial as money.

We have situations here where the victim gave up there wallet or car and were still shot. They did everything asked and STILL got shot.
We don't know if they could have responded faster than the attack, but there are plenty of examples of the victim pulling and using their gun in time though.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's not either or... it's both. The police are still required to come to my house if I call 911, even though I have guns.





Do you have violent crime? Do you have rape? Do you have murder?





The statistics are very difficult to nail down, but the estimates for gun use in self defense in the US annually (including just showing a gun, or just making a shotgun pump noise) ranges from hundreds of thousands to millions of times per year.

Yes I understand that Police will come, but explain to me how you having guns protects you from crime and has it ever protected you or friends/family?

We do have rape and murder in our country. But explain to me how, by owning a gun can one prevent it from happening. When it is already happening you wont have time to run to your safe and punch in the securitycode to get your guns.

If law-abiding Civilians own a gun, criminals will also need to protect themselves from law abiding civilians with a gun.

Know you are making up statistics. even if true, it does not reflect to a lower crimerate then the Netherlands, where guns are illegal without a permit.

We have situations here where the victim gave up there wallet or car and were still shot. They did everything asked and STILL got shot.
We don't know if they could have responded faster than the attack, but there are plenty of examples of the victim pulling and using their gun in time though.

These instances are very rare. And I imagine would not have mattered if you had a gun or not. The criminal might as well shoot you before robbing.

 

[ryzno]

These instances are very rare. And I imagine would not have mattered if you had a gun or not. The criminal might as well shoot you before robbing.

You imagine? It happens a lot more than you think. Should he have shot them? They were unarmed, they didn't resist. That's like saying the police should shoot first then ask questions later.

 

[TexRex]

If I was being attacked by someone with a knife, I'm not about to get into a choreographed knife fight, I'd rather just have a gun and make sure I have more a chance of surviving the event than the other guy.

If you have a firearm, what prevents your attacker from having a firearm as well?