Mass shooting at Madden tournament in Jacksonville

  • Thread starter PzR Slim
  • 371 comments
  • 16,683 views
Johnnypenso
If it weren't for the videogame angle and the live Twitter feed I doubt this would even have made national news to begin with.
Click to expand...
Gotta love being able to make such a claim, alluding to apathy in the absence of an agenda, and not have to defend it because it proffers an alternate scenario...

...that didn't actually occur.

:rolleyes:
 
PocketZeven
I understand fully, but I made my comment compared to the Mollie Tibbet's murder which got significant more exposure.

edit: changed grammar
Click to expand...
There are more than 1000 murders in the U.S. every month and probably many thousands more missing and I'm sure some of them are pretty or attractive as well and they don't make headlines.
 
Blood Eagle
To be fair that case has been a big deal since she disappeared for over a month before the suspect was even known or found. Chris Watts isn't an immigrant and he's all over the headlines. At least where I am.
Click to expand...
I dindt take that in account. I regretfully made an unfair comparison. Still I found it great when the family of the girl condemned the policitization .
 
Last edited:
This isn't news because it's the US and this happens all the time. The same reason people care more when terrorist attacks happen in Berlin and not Karachi.
 
PocketZeven
It is very telling how much less exposure this story is getting, because it doenst involve:

A. an immigrant
B. a violent shooting game
C. young attractive girl

And I am calling out both left and right media. There is no common sense in hanging on to gun laws in their current state. More weapons will not prevent mass shootings!

edit: corrected spelling
Click to expand...
The game isn't violent, but it has re-lit the spark about the violence & video game debate in some places.
https://www.myajc.com/news/national...eo-games-and-violence/83Q7CThC7CI8KpZzizSc2I/
https://cbs12.com/news/local/jacksonville-shooting-reignites-debate-about-video-games-and-violence

I imagine if this happened at a COD tournament, it'd be a much bigger story to your credit on point B.
 
PocketZeven
It is very telling how much less exposure this story is getting, because it doenst involve:

A. an immigrant
B. a violent shooting game
C. young attractive girl

And I am calling out both left and right media. There is no common sense in hanging on to gun laws in their current state. More weapons will not prevent mass shootings!

edit: corrected spelling
Click to expand...

Again I ask because yet again details are given, a lapse of actual follow up by the system to prevent said user getting weapons didn't happen. So I'm curious why supposedly the laws in their current state are the issue. If the system isn't given the inputs to actually do what it is intended for, it's hard to claim "laws aren't working we must do more".
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
I'm curious why supposedly the laws in their current state are the issue. If the system isn't given the inputs to actually do what it is intended for, it's hard to claim "laws aren't working we must do more".
Click to expand...

That's probably semantics... if a system is designed to include certain inputs but those inputs are not available or not properly made then the system isn't working. If that system is a legal system defined in law then the law isn't working - that may be the fault of the designer or a third party who's "supposed" to do something but the bottom line is that it's not working.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Again I ask because yet again details are given, a lapse of actual follow up by the system to prevent said user getting weapons didn't happen. So I'm curious why supposedly the laws in their current state are the issue. If the system isn't given the inputs to actually do what it is intended for, it's hard to claim "laws aren't working we must do more".
Click to expand...

I am not speaking about state specific laws. The USA is the leader in mass shootings per citizen in the world by far. Please explain and give a viable solution. Every proposition or suggestion I make gets shot down (no pun intended) because I dont know state laws, the constitution, american culture etc.

As an outsider I just call it out as I see it. Without considering any laws, culture etc. If you are with a group of people you dont know locked in a room. In what situation would you be most comfortable:

A) no-one has a gun
B) half of the people have guns
C) everyone has a gun

How many people must be shot dead, before real action is taken?
 
TenEightyOne
That's probably semantics... if a system is designed to include certain inputs but those inputs are not available or not properly made then the system isn't working. If that system is a legal system defined in law then the law isn't working - that may be the fault of the designer or a third party who's "supposed" to do something but the bottom line is that it's not working.
Click to expand...

Not really, it's like having any set measures or security, if I have a safe and use it to protect valuable items and said valuable items get stolen because I didn't utilize said safe, I can't then blame safe/vault technology for not being up to par.

Similar analogy could be used with cyber measures.

PocketZeven
I am not speaking about state specific laws. The USA is the leader in mass shootings per citizen in the world by far. Please explain and give a viable solution. Every proposition or suggestion I make gets shot down (no pun intended) because I dont know state laws, the constitution, american culture etc.

As an outsider I just call it out as I see it. Without considering any laws, culture etc. If you are with a group of people you dont know locked in a room. In what situation would you be most comfortable:

A) no-one has a gun
B) half of the people have guns
C) everyone has a gun

How many people must be shot dead, before real action is taken?
Click to expand...

You didn't make a proposition. You simply said "DO SOMETHING" or hinted at a general idea of throwing more laws at it, when the laws already there aren't in use.

Also you are not speaking of state specific laws? Why not that is how this country works, there is the Federal and then the State regulatory actions of said Federal laws. So it's quite important in reality. So perhaps go look them up to have an informed argument. Because you can't really "call it like you see it", if you haven't a clue of the full picture you're supposedly seeing.

Also what real action needs to be taken? Again you haven't suggested anything just said the same line as you always do. "Do something, anything!" seems just a haphazard really.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Not really, it's like having any set measures or security, if I have a safe and use it to protect valuable items and said valuable items get stolen because I didn't utilize said safe, I can't then blame safe/vault technology for not being up to par.

Same is analogy could be used with cyber measures.



You didn't make a proposition. You simply said "DO SOMETHING" or hinted at a general idea of throwing more laws at it, when the laws already there aren't in use.

Also you are not speaking of state specific laws? Why not that is how this country works, there is the Federal and then the State regulatory actions of said Federal laws. So it's quite important in reality. So perhaps go look them up to have an informed argument. Because you can't really "call it like you see it", if you haven't a clue of the full picture you're supposedly seeing.

Also what real action needs to be taken? Again you haven't suggested anything just said the same line as you always do. "Do something, anything!" seems just a haphazard really.
Click to expand...

I was referring to ealier posts I made in another thread (I believe Vegas shooting thread) where you responded aggressive to. You are actually trying to defend the current gun laws hiding behind a 227 year old amendment. What real actions need to be taken? Either:
  • Strict mandatory background checks with waiting period
  • limit to guns owned
  • no highpowered rifles that can be upgraded
  • Ban public ownership of guns (only with a permit)
  • ownership through permit/license
  • To get a permit one must pass a written test and practical test
  • etc.
These are all actions that could be written in to a law. And why couldnt a amendment be amended?
What would have been your answer on my ABC question?
 
Last edited:
PocketZeven
I was referring to ealier posts I made in another thread where you responded aggressive to.
Click to expand...

Aggressive? What are you on about? All I said was that those who had a power to do something failed again to prevent another situation where wanton violence happens because an individual with an extensive record of posing a threat to himself and others was allowed to purchase a weapon. And had said laws and said follow up been enacted like it should he wouldn't have purchased said guns legally. The ability to purchase weapons isn't the issue, the issue is when the background check done skims through the info and has no red flags pop up on and individual with many.

Do you know the red flags of this individual who did this attack?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/us/jacksonville-madden-shooter-katz-mental-health-invs/index.html
 
PocketZeven
I was referring to ealier posts I made in another thread (I believe Vegas shooting thread) where you responded aggressive to. You are actually trying to defend the current gun laws hiding behind a 227 year old amendment. What real actions need to be taken? Either:
  • Strict mandatory background checks with waiting period
  • limit to guns owned
  • no highpowered rifles that can be upgraded
  • Ban public ownership of guns (only with a permit)
  • ownership through permit/license
  • To get a permit one must pass a written test and practical test
  • etc.
These are all actions that could be written in to a law. And why couldnt a amendment be amended?
What would have been your answer on my ABC question?
Click to expand...

What if I told you that most of those things are already laws?

In Minnesota at least...
- There is a background check and 7 day wait period unless you've pre-applied for a purchase permit.
- Several gun types are illegal including machine guns.
- Conversion kits are illegal
- This one is a nice thought, but the floodgates on gun ownership are already open.
- Depending on what you are doing with the gun you need special permits.
- You need to attend classes and pass tests to obtain said licenses.

The problem is, as has already been stated, is that laws only work if those that are supposed to enforce them actually do their job.
 
Northstar
What if I told you that most of those things are already laws?

In Minnesota at least...
- There is a background check and 7 day wait period unless you've pre-applied for a purchase permit.
- Several gun types are illegal including machine guns.
- Conversion kits are illegal
- This one is a nice thought, but the floodgates on gun ownership are already open.
- Depending on what you are doing with the gun you need special permits.
- You need to attend classes and pass tests to obtain said licenses.

The problem is, as has already been stated, is that laws only work if those that are supposed to enforce them actually do their job.
Click to expand...

It should be federal law then. It isnt very hard to buy a gun in one state and take it to another.

LMSCorvetteGT2
Aggressive? What are you on about? All I said was that those who had a power to do something failed again to prevent another situation where wanton violence happens because an individual with an extensive record of posing a threat to himself and others was allowed to purchase a weapon. And had said laws and said follow up been enacted like it should he wouldn't have purchased said guns legally. The ability to purchase weapons isn't the issue, the issue is when the background check done skims through the info and has no red flags pop up on and individual with many.

Do you know the red flags of this individual who did this attack?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/us/jacksonville-madden-shooter-katz-mental-health-invs/index.html
Click to expand...

Yes and there were 2 solutions. Proper mental healthcare and stricter gun laws. It is either both and not one or the other. Wassnt it better if people with mental health issues have no acces to guns and be properly helped by a mental health specialist.

Are you a supporter of the NRA? I am asking to better understand your viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
Northstar
What if I told you that most of those things are already laws?

In Minnesota at least...
- There is a background check and 7 day wait period unless you've pre-applied for a purchase permit.
- Several gun types are illegal including machine guns.
- Conversion kits are illegal
- This one is a nice thought, but the floodgates on gun ownership are already open.
- Depending on what you are doing with the gun you need special permits.
- You need to attend classes and pass tests to obtain said licenses.

The problem is, as has already been stated, is that laws only work if those that are supposed to enforce them actually do their job.
Click to expand...
I'm curious to know if there were any specific requirements for gun ownership in Florida that were not followed in this particular case.
 
PocketZeven
It isnt very hard to buy a gun in one state and take it to another.
Click to expand...

Actually, unless you're buying a long rifle, it is. In order to buy any other type of gun from a federally licensed dealer in another state the dealer you are buying it from has to ship it to another federally licensed dealer in your home state at which point you can take possession of it.

There is the gun show loophole which is a bit of a gray area and will hopefully be closed sooner rather than later.

Johnnypenso
I'm curious to know if there were any specific requirements for gun ownership in Florida that were not followed in this particular case.
Click to expand...

He purchased the gun in Maryland. Either way though I'm not familiar enough with the specific gun laws of either state so I comment more than saying there should have been lots of red flags on his background check.
 
Last edited:
PocketZeven
In what situation would you be most comfortable:

A) no-one has a gun
B) half of the people have guns
C) everyone has a gun
Click to expand...
I'll bite and answer your question since no one else did.
C, why?
A, no one has protection should something happen.
B, I'm at the mercy of the other half. Should the other half decide to want to attack me or the unarmed half guess who wins.
C, everyone has a gun and everyone is protected.
Side note, I don't trust anyone and I can't carry a gun. I do carry a knife.

While America has more guns than people, not everyone has a gun.
We do have armed police, there response time is far from acceptable though...
 
PocketZeven
A) no-one has a gun
B) half of the people have guns
C) everyone has a gun
Click to expand...

It's a little disconcerting to walk into a gun range where you know everyone in the building is armed - especially when they're carrying highly visible firearms like long guns. After a while you get used to it, and then you actually kinda like knowing that nobody can start anything. I've occupied a firing range position next to a person with a sawed off shotgun who was outfitted like a gang member (who was practicing). I can honestly tell you I was more comfortable being in that situation than I would have been in any other situation with that person while I knew he was armed.

The scenario where no-one has a gun is not possible, but I can definitely say that I would be less comfortable with my ability to protect my family in that scenario. Because if multiple muscle heads show up (especially with various clubs or stabbing weapons) there's not much I can do in retaliation.

There aren't too many people in my life that I can think that would make me less comfortable knowing that they own guns. I know a lot of gun owners, and generally I would be more comfortable if that list grew rather than shrank. So for example, my neighbor across the street, and my daughter's school teacher, and my co-workers and wife's co-workers, etc. etc.
 
ryzno
I'll bite and answer your question since no one else did.
C, why?
A, no one has protection should something happen.
B, I'm at the mercy of the other half. Should the other half decide to want to attack me or the unarmed half guess who wins.
C, everyone has a gun and everyone is protected.
Side note, I don't trust anyone and I can't carry a gun. I do carry a knife.

While America has more guns than people, not everyone has a gun.
We do have armed police, there response time is far from acceptable though...
Click to expand...

It was a choose one answer question.

Danoff
It's a little disconcerting to walk into a gun range where you know everyone in the building is armed - especially when they're carrying highly visible firearms like long guns. After a while you get used to it, and then you actually kinda like knowing that nobody can start anything. I've occupied a firing range position next to a person with a sawed off shotgun who was outfitted like a gang member (who was practicing). I can honestly tell you I was more comfortable being in that situation than I would have been in any other situation with that person while I knew he was armed.

The scenario where no-one has a gun is not possible, but I can definitely say that I would be less comfortable with my ability to protect my family in that scenario. Because if multiple muscle heads show up (especially with various clubs or stabbing weapons) there's not much I can do in retaliation.

There aren't too many people in my life that I can think that would make me less comfortable knowing that they own guns. I know a lot of gun owners, and generally I would be more comfortable if that list grew rather than shrank. So for example, my neighbor across the street, and my daughter's school teacher, and my co-workers and wife's co-workers, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

I said in advance you shouldnt consider current gun laws with the questions. The question was in which situation you would be most comfortable or less anxious. I have absolutely no problems of using guns on a gunrange. I have shot guns before and liked it. On a gunrange there are strict protocals and trained personnel and people walking around. My problem is if my neighbour, who is a nice guy but a bit of an idiot with a meanstreak, should not have acces to a gun, because he might hurt himself or others. (Gladly he does not have acces to guns here in the NL) I have seen crazy people waving around with knives here, with gladly little to no casualties, but imagine if they had acces to guns.

Even background checks can be circumvented. There are so many guns in the US, it shouldnt be that hard to steal one from family/friends.
 

Similar threads

Touring Mars
Major global IT outage linked to Crowdstrike software
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Dennisch
Dennisch
HenrySwanson
School shooting in Texas (shooter arrested)
10 11 12
Replies
355
Views
16K
Danoff
Danoff
Sanji Himura
Shooting at Great Mills High School in MD.
Replies
2
Views
623
McLaren
McLaren
Firehound427
Former Japanese PM Shinzo Abe shot dead at event in Nara
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
Liquid
Liquid
Biggles
The GTP Unofficial 2021 Canada Election Thread
Replies
5
Views
861
Keef
Keef

Latest Posts

Back