Mass shooting at Madden tournament in Jacksonville

[BallPtPenTheif]

Why would toxic banter get a mention specifically for e-Sports? Is it really any different to competitive soccer, Gaelic football, rugby, cricket or many other sports? Ever been to a dance festival? Middle-class mothers are as toxic as it gets.

Toxic 'bants' are (and always have been) the norm behind any sport's public facade. It's irrelevant in this context because toxic banter does not automatically lead to producing a gun and shooting people dead. Being an arsehole is what makes that happen.

Online banter is drastically different than real world trash talking. When you remove the accountability that "being present" creates people tend to behave worse with an almost sociopathic tendency in how they grief and upset players.

I clearly need to state it again, BUT THIS IS NOT AN EXCUSE for the shooter nor a shifting of blame. Also toxic banter doesn't have to "automatically" lead to violence to become a part of the discussion so I don't buy your disqualifying point here.

If real, the previous day's argument is important in establishing context. No different than if two coworkers got into an argument and then shot each other the next day. Everyone would wonder what they argued about... this is no different, which is why it surprises me that it's not mentioned.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Online banter is drastically different than real world trash talking.

I disagree entirely.

Also toxic banter doesn't have to "automatically" lead to violence to become a part of the discussion so I don't buy your disqualifying point here.

This is a thread about somebody murdering some other people. His engagement in toxic banter is as relevant to the actions of those who generally engage in such conduct as the colour of their underpants.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

This is a thread about somebody murdering some other people. His engagement in toxic banter is as relevant to the actions of those who generally engage in such conduct as the colour of their underpants.

So you say. Again, I think that's a bizarre detail to throw out. Motivation and context are always relevant details in a murder, I don't see why you would disregard those details just because they were playing video games. I feel like I have to say it a third time, but no one is using context to excuse or blame any party in this.

Right now there is a general confusion over wether this was a mentally ill premeditated shooting or a mentally ill guy who got caught up in the moment who was out for revenge. Context would seem to be a hugely important factor in determining that difference.

As for online banter being different. I've never had a person in real life call me a homosexual African American terrorist, so I'll stick to my opinion about that difference.

 

[Danoff]

Rinse and repeat.

Vacuous statement. You can literally post that about any crime.

 

[Robin]

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.

The problem is your then going to have to stop everyone owning a gun because, sure, we can't guarantee he wouldn't do that same thing in a traffic accident but can we guarantee that with anyone? So then its basically the discussion on the right to bare arms completely which is a path well trodden.

Very little can be controlled in the wider world but that doesn't mean we should try and do what we can in a contained environment. Why have airport security when someone can go into a parking lot and shoot up the place causing a similar amount of damage? These e-sports events should be run and administered with the same professionalism as other sports to reduce the chances of these things happening.

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.

Medical professionals would be able to gauge better than I could who is healthily competitive and who isn't. Also banning people from owning a gun, wouldn't that not also be limiting freedom? You have to basically choose to limit one or the other.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Vacuous statement. You can literally post that about any crime.

I'm trademarking it for this.

 

[TexRex]

Jacksonville shooter David Katz was hospitalized twice for mental illness, records say

So once again we have an individual known to be unstable coming to possess a firearm that they reasonably ought not possess.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Jacksonville shooter David Katz was hospitalized twice for mental illness, records say

So once again we have an individual known to be unstable coming to possess a firearm that they reasonably ought not possess.

There's no date given for when he was hospitalized. It's possible those records are subject to some privacy protection if he was a juvenile at the time of his treatment. His parents divorced when he was 12 or 13 so it's quite possible it happened in his mid-teens. As I understand it he purchased the gun legally so we'll find out soon enough if the laws in place were followed.

 

[Mr Tree]

The problem is your then going to have to stop everyone owning a gun because, sure, we can't guarantee he wouldn't do that same thing in a traffic accident but can we guarantee that with anyone? So then its basically the discussion on the right to bare arms completely which is a path well trodden.

Very little can be controlled in the wider world but that doesn't mean we should try and do what we can in a contained environment. Why have airport security when someone can go into a parking lot and shoot up the place causing a similar amount of damage? These e-sports events should be run and administered with the same professionalism as other sports to reduce the chances of these things happening.



Medical professionals would be able to gauge better than I could who is healthily competitive and who isn't. Also banning people from owning a gun, wouldn't that not also be limiting freedom? You have to basically choose to limit one or the other.

Why do you have faith in the vetting process for entering a gamescompetition and not for owning a gun? That's what I'm actually wondering. I'm not trying to propose to take away any gun.

@Johnnypenso I don't remember if it where you. People were suggesting vetting processes for entering tourneys and I don't see why 'you' have faith in that vetting process.and.not in the one for guns

 

[CodeRedR51]

There's no date given for when he was hospitalized. It's possible those records are subject to some privacy protection if he was a juvenile at the time of his treatment. His parents divorced when he was 12 or 13 so it's quite possible it happened in his mid-teens. As I understand it he purchased the gun legally so we'll find out soon enough if the laws in place were followed.

The purchasing of a firearm should never be allowed for anyone with a history of mental illness, no matter how young.

 

[TheCracker]

With professional e-sports being a relatively new phenomenon it seems to me that both the organisers and those taking part should start acting more professionally. You take a major competition, as i expect this was, with high amount of prize money on the line, but organise it like a giant lan-party with little to no adjudication when it comes to keeping the performers, who amongst their ranks are bound to have a high degree of individuals who skate on the border of being classed as anti-social, and you have a perfect storm for something like this to happen. You draw a line in the sand and penalize those who step over it, just as they do in all other professional competitions.

 

[MatskiMonk]

The purchasing of a firearm should never be allowed for anyone with a history of mental illness, no matter how young.

Where does the 'mentally ill' line get drawn though? There might be an obvious answer to this I'm not aware of, but it seems a bit like assuming 'mentally ill' is the common denominator that needs focusing on really glosses over the complexity of mental illness. Over 40,000,000 Americans experience mental illness each year... that's a lot of people to disarm - and what good would it do - by which I mean, how many gun homicides are actually committed by those who have been diagnosed with a mental illness - all or them, half of them, a handful?

It's easy to see the words mentally ill in a news article about a shooting and think it should be obvious... but I doubt it is. Maybe this is something that could be raised in GTP's depression thread. I'm sure there are some gun owners in there.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The purchasing of a firearm should never be allowed for anyone with a history of mental illness, no matter how young.

While I agree it's something that should generally be considered as a disqualifying factor I'm not sure I agree it should be a lifetime ban in all cases. It also depends on what qualifies as an illness. If he was treated for adolescent depression, for example, would that disqualify someone from owning a firearm? Should it?

With professional e-sports being a relatively new phenomenon it seems to me that both the organisers and those taking part should start acting more professionally. You take a major competition, as i expect this was, with high amount of prize money on the line, but organise it like a giant lan-party with little to no adjudication when it comes to keeping the performers, who amongst their ranks are bound to have a high degree of individuals who skate on the border of being classed as anti-social, and you have a perfect storm for something like this to happen. You draw a line in the sand and penalize those who step over it, just as they do in all other professional competitions.

AFAIK this is the first incident of it's kind in tens or hundreds of thousands of similar tournaments. If it was a perfect storm wouldn't it be happening more often?

 

[TheCracker]

AFAIK this is the first incident of it's kind in tens or hundreds of thousands of similar tournaments. If it was a perfect storm wouldn't it be happening more often?

A perfect storm is an event in which a rare combination of circumstances drastically aggravates the event.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If we are using definitions then this would not qualify IMO. The gathering of individuals of the type you described that might frequent a gaming event is not a rare occurrence since there are gaming events all over the country every week and surely many of them attract individuals of this variety. The anti- social loner type is what I am referring to of course.

 

[TexRex]

There's no date given for when he was hospitalized. It's possible those records are subject to some privacy protection if he was a juvenile at the time of his treatment. His parents divorced when he was 12 or 13 so it's quite possible it happened in his mid-teens. As I understand it he purchased the gun legally so we'll find out soon enough if the laws in place were followed.

Where does the 'mentally ill' line get drawn though? There might be an obvious answer to this I'm not aware of, but it seems a bit like assuming 'mentally ill' is the common denominator that needs focusing on really glosses over the complexity of mental illness.

That's a very valid point. A government body that exists to investigate and address public health matters, the CDC for example, really ought to look into that.

Over 40,000,000 Americans experience mental illness each year... that's a lot of people to disarm - and what good would it do - by which I mean, how many gun homicides are actually committed by those who have been diagnosed with a mental illness - all or them, half of them, a handful?

Another great point. The CDC would be a logical choice and is in a perfect position to investigate such a thing...but they can't.

In 1993, the CDC funded a study whose authors found that the presence of a gun was linked to a higher risk of homicide in the home. The NRA lobbied to shutter the injury prevention branch of the agency citing bias and gun control advocacy. A "compromise" resulted in the agency not being permitted to use funding for gun control advocacy--the Dickey Amendment.

That's all well and good, but the notion of mere investigation into such matters, to whatever [and in absence of] end, invariably leads to the NRA crying gun control and invoking "Dickey".

It's easy to see the words mentally ill in a news article about a shooting and think it should be obvious... but I doubt it is.

I'm sure it isn't, and I'm sure there are a plethora of scenarios where the notion of mental illness has no meaningful impact on violent actions.

Edit: Wrong button; still composing.

Cont'd: Addressing the incredibly broad notion of mental illness is a worthwhile venture even in the absence of meaningful impact on gun violence, just as those who reject gun control frequently assert, which is why it's baffling that the current administration which has established itself as opposing gun control has set out te kneecap the addressing of mental health with regards to everything but opiate abuse.

 

[Robin]

Why do you have faith in the vetting process for entering a gamescompetition and not for owning a gun? That's what I'm actually wondering. I'm not trying to propose to take away any gun.

I presume you mean faith in a hypothetical vetting process for a games competition because I certainly don't have faith in whatever they are doing right now. Believing that a group of professionals vetting people for gaming competitions would do a good job does not automatically mean I believe people doing the same thing currently in the gun vetting process are necessarily inadequate.

Sure they could always improve as I said before but there is only so much that can be done in the open world compared to a closed situation and it basically comes down to damage limitation not eradication. It's just one less place someone can shoot up.

 

[Danoff]

I'm trademarking it for this.

It's well placed here because of all of the misunderstandings that go into a statement like that. Like the misunderstanding that there is rinsing... there isn't. Like the misunderstanding the repetition is avoidable. Like the misunderstanding that this is somehow different from any other kind of crime.

It's just nonsense. But I get that it makes you feel good.

 

[Robin]

While I agree it's something that should generally be considered as a disqualifying factor I'm not sure I agree it should be a lifetime ban in all cases. It also depends on what qualifies as an illness. If he was treated for adolescent depression, for example, would that disqualify someone from owning a firearm? Should it?

Just to add anecdotally,

There was a story a while back about a woman who applied to be a member of cabin crew, pretty far into the process she was given a questionnaire asking if she had any history of depression, she answered honestly and said it had been treated and she was fit and well now (as confirmed by a doctor). After performing well in every other stage she was suddenly rejected. She sued under discrimination in the recruitment process because this wasn't a real question, there was only one right answer and they weren't looking for honesty.

So illnesses, should people be ostracised from society for life and possibly made to feel more mentally unwell because of it? Owning a gun might be a bit different from being cabin crew but it's still a position of responsibility and where do we draw the line? Why rehabilitate prisoners? They are already damaged goods right?

 

[TexRex]

where do we draw the line?

There are varying degrees of sightedness, but at some point a lack thereof results in an individual's right to drive on public roads being affected, such as with them being restricted by time of day (with a lack of light significantly affecting overall visibility) or not being permitted at all. It's a difficult issue subject to a person-by-person basis but a line has still been drawn based on how persons with impaired vision driving may endanger the lives of others.

 

[MatskiMonk]

That's a very valid point. A government body that exists to investigate and address public health matters, the CDC for example, really ought to look into that.


Another great point. The CDC would be a logical choice and is in a perfect position to investigate such a thing...but they can't.

In 1993, the CDC funded a study whose authors found that the presence of a gun was linked to a higher risk of homicide in the home. The NRA lobbied to shutter the injury prevention branch of the agency citing bias and gun control advocacy. A "compromise" resulted in the agency not being permitted to use funding for gun control advocacy--the Dickey Amendment.

That's all well and good, but the notion of mere investigation into such matters, to whatever [and in absence of] end, invariably leads to the NRA crying gun control and invoking "Dickey".


I'm sure it isn't, and I'm sure there are a plethora of scenarios where the notion of mental illness has no meaningful impact on violent actions.

Edit: Wrong button; still composing.

Cont'd: Addressing the incredibly broad notion of mental illness is a worthwhile venture even in the absence of meaningful impact on gun violence, just as those who reject gun control frequently assert, which is why it's baffling that the current administration which has established itself as opposing gun control has set out te kneecap the addressing of mental health with regards to everything but opiate abuse.

I can imagine the pamflet you'd get at the Doctors after going in to discuss prolonged low mood.

You have a mental illness
Your mental illness is one that removes your inalienable right to bear arms
You are not entitled to meaningful self-defence
The government removes these rights because it thinks you might shoot and kill people
It thinks you might kill people, but only protects other citizens by removing one of many, many methods of killing people
The government is removing your rights because YOU might be a murderer

 

[TexRex]

I can imagine the pamflet you'd get at the Doctors after going in to discuss prolonged low mood.

You have a mental illness
Your mental illness is one that removes your inalienable right to bear arms
You are not entitled to meaningful self-defence
The government removes these rights because it thinks you might shoot and kill people
It thinks you might kill people, but only protects other citizens by removing one of many, many methods of killing people
The government is removing your rights because YOU might be a murderer

Nice useless hypothetical that supposes no differentiation between mental illnesses. What was the point of that and how does it pertain to my comments?

 

[CodeRedR51]

If he was treated for adolescent depression, for example, would that disqualify someone from owning a firearm? Should it?

Depression is something that never really goes away IMO. I personally struggled with it in the past and do not trust myself with a gun. I woudn't trust anyone else either.

 

[Robin]

There are varying degrees of sightedness, but at some point a lack thereof results in an individual's right to drive on public roads being affected, such as with them being restricted by time of day (with a lack of light significantly affecting overall visibility) or not being permitted at all. It's a difficult issue subject to a person-by-person basis but a line has still been drawn based on how persons with impaired vision driving may endanger the lives of others.

The problem is that sightedness is very much measurable in a numeric way whereas a persons mental state is way more vague to categorise not to mention that anyone can act out of character or on impulse. Sightness wont also suddenly improve or degrade out of the blue whereas a mental state can.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Just to add anecdotally,

There was a story a while back about a woman who applied to be a member of cabin crew, pretty far into the process she was given a questionnaire asking if she had any history of depression, she answered honestly and said it had been treated and she was fit and well now (as confirmed by a doctor). After performing well in every other stage she was suddenly rejected. She sued under discrimination in the recruitment process because this wasn't a real question, there was only one right answer and they weren't looking for honesty.

So illnesses, should people be ostracised from society for life and possibly made to feel more mentally unwell because of it? Owning a gun might be a bit different from being cabin crew but it's still a position of responsibility and where do we draw the line? Why rehabilitate prisoners? They are already damaged goods right?

That's the issue in a nutshell. "Mental illness" if there even is such a medical term, encompasses such a broad spectrum of issues it would be a nightmare to draw a line in the sand that is both fair and constitutional when it comes to gun control. Some are easy and obvious like those with a history of being violent or engaging in a pattern of criminal activity but others not so much. While most of us would like to see action on this front it's a complex issue that won't be solved overnight.

 

[TexRex]

The problem is that sightedness is very much measurable in a numeric way whereas a persons mental state is way more vague to categorise not to mention that anyone can act out of character or on impulse.

"The problem is too complicated...let's ignore it"?

The parallel wasn't a perfect one, nor was it intended to be interpreted as a perfect one; what it does do is demonstrate the potential to categorize varying degrees of a problem and to address each degree uniquely rather than to label one as having perfect vision or imperfect vision and to allow them to drive or to prohibit it.

Sightness wont also suddenly improve or degrade out of the blue whereas a mental state can.

So you press the issue of "mental illness isn't just one thing" and then make a blanket generalization?

I exhibit mild symptoms of depression when the weather takes a turn but can immediately feel myself righted when the sun decides to pop back out from behind some particularly menacing grey clouds.

The other side of that coin is represented by a member of my extended family who was incorrectly diagnosed of one disorder when he was 7, receiving ineffective treatment, and then correctly diagnosed with another not completely dissimilar disorder at age 13. 26 now, the condition is debilitating even when receiving proper treatment and he's prone to behavior that is harmful to others and himself when not. With current methods of treatment, his condition will not improve--it's merely "managed".

Differences can be quantified if appropriate attention is given.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Nice useless hypothetical that supposes no differentiation between mental illnesses. What was the point of that and how does it pertain to my comments?

The satire was aimed at the constitution, and the premise - not at your comments.

Depression is something that never really goes away IMO. I personally struggled with it in the past and do not trust myself with a gun. I woudn't trust anyone else either.

Do you trust yourself driving a car, carving meat or standing on subway platforms? If you think all people with depression are a risk to themselves or others do you agree they should be discriminated against when trying to secure long term borrowing, for example?

 

[CodeRedR51]

Do you trust yourself driving a car, carving meat or standing on subway platforms? If you think all people with depression are a risk to themselves or others do you agree they should be discriminated against when trying to secure long term borrowing, for example?

I am not a threat to anyone but myself. A gun is quick and easy, hence why I do not own one. But I cannot speak for everyone. I am just saying it never truly goes away 100%. Anything can cause a flare up. Not sure how borrowing money has anything to do with it.

 

[Robin]

"The problem is too complicated...let's ignore it"?.

No, and I didn't insinuate that.

The parallel wasn't a perfect one, nor was it intended to be interpreted as a perfect one; what it does do is demonstrate the potential to categorize varying degrees of a problem and to address each degree uniquely rather than to label one as having perfect vision or imperfect vision and to allow them to drive or to prohibit it.

Which I don't disagree with, I was merely saying that the 'degrees' are much more fuzzy than defining vision. I wasn't saying that mental illnesses aren't catagorisable.

So you press the issue of "mental illness isn't just one thing" and then make a blanket generalization?

I exhibit mild symptoms of depression when the weather takes a turn but can immediately feel myself righted when the sun decides to pop back out from behind some particularly menacing grey clouds.

The other side of that coin is represented by a member of my extended family who was incorrectly diagnosed of one disorder when he was 7, receiving ineffective treatment, and then correctly diagnosed with another not completely dissimilar disorder at age 13. 26 now, the condition is debilitating even when receiving proper treatment and he's prone to behavior that is harmful to others and himself when not. With current methods of treatment, his condition will not improve--it's merely "managed".

Differences can be quantified if appropriate attention is given.

Your saying that people (even those that have conditions that, as you put it, cannot improve) can't have mood swings, lighter moments, experience feelings? That's human nature and as long as your alive ANYONE can see an improvement or degradation (however marginal) in their behaviour throughout a day regardless of their general mental state. Furthermore this discussion pertains to this event, as far as we know the perpetrator exhibited no dangerous behaviour outside of competitive gaming so there's the example of a situation that affected his behaviour regardless of his general mental state.

 

[TexRex]

The satire was aimed at the constitution, and the premise - not at your comments.

Well, I appreciate the clarification, I do, but would you be so kind as to indulge my curiosity with a bit more? I mean...I like to think myself not completely dim, but I can't seem to figure out how I (my post was quoted, after all) fit in or determine the motivation behind the satire.

Edit:

Which I don't disagree with, I was merely saying that the 'degrees' are much more fuzzy than defining vision. I wasn't saying that mental illnesses aren't catagorisable.

Yes, the notion of determining the presence of mental illness--particularly examples that affect cognitive reasoning and impulse control--is a difficult one to address, but that's not a reason to ignore it. What's more, addressing it only to discover there's absolutely no correlation between mental illness and gun violence (fat chance) won't render it a worthless venture.

Your saying that people (even those that have conditions that, as you put it, cannot improve) can't have mood swings, lighter moments, experience feelings? That's human nature and as long as your alive ANYONE can see an improvement or degradation (however marginal) in their behaviour throughout a day regardless of their general mental state.

I'm not saying that at all. Everyone goes through phases, be they throughout the day or over longer periods of time. Someone in an atypical state caused by external stimulus isn't inherently afflicted with a mental disorder, and when one is not, things like reasoning and empathy play a part when thoughts of action enter their mind.

Furthermore this discussion pertains to this event, as far as we know the perpetrator exhibited no dangerous behaviour outside of competitive gaming so there's the example of a situation that affected his behaviour regardless of his general mental state.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that nobody in their right mind responds to dissatisfaction with events that transpire or a heated exchange with an individual by retrieving a firearm they brought with them and shooting up a venue indiscriminately...that's the sort of scenario a lack of reasoning and/or empathy leads to. These functions are still likely to reign in such impulses, but shooting just the source of dissatisfaction (gaming console?) or only the individual that participated in the heated exchange seems just a touch more..."reasonable" (that's not really the word I'm looking for but it'll have to do).