Mass shooting at Madden tournament in Jacksonville

  • Thread starter PzR Slim
  • 371 comments
  • 16,683 views
I really only ever want people who know what they are doing with guns to carry them. Some person with zero training who thinks their a cowboy could easily make the situation a whole lot worse. If you own a gun and carry it in public, you should be responsible enough to at least do some training with it. You should also know what sort of ammo you need for it. Shooting someone with a metal jacket round at close quarters could easily pass through the person and hit someone else, shooting them with a hollow point is much safer.
 
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.

Do you have any actual understanding of U.S. gun laws or even just U.S. laws in general? I mean technically yes stealing a gun is a way to circumvent a background check, but you would be committing at least 1 felony in the process.

Still waiting on a reply to my previous post by the way.
 
It should be federal law then. It isnt very hard to buy a gun in one state and take it to another.



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.

There are federal requirements, the background checks done in any state goes through the FBI. The gun dealer is licensed through a Federal system. Seems pretty Federal to me, yet you seem to want to do away with state laws, and by extension states, because of some notion that if it was all purely Federally regulated nothing would happen.

Okay since you want to control the narrative here, to help you win an argument. How about you take a step back from that and actually answer questions yourself, how do you exactly work out proper mental health, without every person on say anxiety meds ending up on a no gun buying list? What stricter gun laws could be imposed? You have to be 21 to buy a hand gun, have to not have violated various laws, if you have court ordered mental health hospitalization you again aren't allow to buy a weapon. So what exactly more should be done, that could have prevented this?

Also not sure what being a supporter of the NRA has to do with anything, since NRA members aren't cookie cutter hive mind mentalities, so it really wouldn't help you understand.
 
There are federal requirements, the background checks done in any state goes through the FBI. The gun dealer is licensed through a Federal system. Seems pretty Federal to me, yet you seem to want to do away with state laws, and by extension states, because of some notion that if it was all purely Federally regulated nothing would happen.

Okay since you want to control the narrative here, to help you win an argument. How about you take a step back from that and actually answer questions yourself, how do you exactly work out proper mental health, without every person on say anxiety meds ending up on a no gun buying list? What stricter gun laws could be imposed? You have to be 21 to buy a hand gun, have to not have violated various laws, if you have court ordered mental health hospitalization you again aren't allow to buy a weapon. So what exactly more should be done, that could have prevented this?

Also not sure what being a supporter of the NRA has to do with anything, since NRA members aren't cookie cutter hive mind mentalities, so it really wouldn't help you understand.

I stated already a few times. Guns are only purchasable if you have a permit. The requirements for these should be determined by qualified experts (which I am not) with a mandatory training requirement, background check, mental health check and exams. When you receive that permit you also have to abide by strict rules how you store and carry your weapons.

This is however made difficult because of the 2nd amendment. In my opinion this amendment is dated and should be revised.
 
I stated already a few times. Guns are only purchasable if you have a permit. The requirements for these should be determined by qualified experts (which I am not) with a mandatory training requirement, background check, mental health check and exams. When you receive that permit you also have to abide by strict rules how you store and carry your weapons.

This is however made difficult because of the 2nd amendment. In my opinion this amendment is dated and should be revised.

Pretty much everything apart from the medical exams is already a law to some extent.
 
It should be federal law then. It isnt very hard to buy a gun in one state and take it to another.
It actually is, just depends on the state and its laws.
For example: An Illinois resident can purchase a long gun in Indiana but they must have an FOID card and the Indiana dealer must wait the 24 hour waiting period required by Illinois before transfering the gun to the purchaser.

But other states such as California require all transfers of firearms to residents to go through a licensed dealer. Which means all guns, not just handguns, need to be shipped to your state of residence and transfered there through whatever process they demand.
Handguns, iirc, must be transferred to a FFL in your state of residence before you take ownership. I believe it's advised to handle any gun transaction this way for your own benefit.
There are so many guns in the US, it shouldnt be that hard to steal one from family/friends.
Why are you advocating stricter gun laws and then saying things like this? This is already a serious offense in the US.
Grand Theft of a Firearm is a Third Degree Felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison regardless of the value of the firearm. While a first time offender will not score prison, a judge can sentence up to the maximum 5 years even on the first offense. Before you get too upset, realize incarceration would not be the norn for a first offense and you may have many options short of incarceration depending on the facts and circumstances of your case.
 
  • 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.
1) Waiting periods would be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS because the 2nd Amendment guarantees individuals the right the bear arms.
2) Limiting guns does nothing to prevent shootings, especially when someone with one gun could be responsible for, say, Parkland, while someone with 20+ could be one of the most law-abiding citizens.
3) Define upgrades, because it’s already illegal in the US to turn a firearm into a fully-automatic gun.
4) You already have to take a test to get a concealed carry permit.
 
I stated already a few times. Guns are only purchasable if you have a permit. The requirements for these should be determined by qualified experts (which I am not) with a mandatory training requirement, background check, mental health check and exams. When you receive that permit you also have to abide by strict rules how you store and carry your weapons.

This is however made difficult because of the 2nd amendment. In my opinion this amendment is dated and should be revised.

Permit? You can already purchase guns without a background check as long as you have a CCW in some states. Which requires a training program to get which I have done myself even. Even though my state no longer requires it for me to carry concealed.

Why should an FFL dealer have to worry about and check medical records to see if those purchasing weapons can do such? Also this wouldn't happen because it is a HIPAA violation and second amendment violation. You've essentially said in your view that people shouldn't be able to buy a gun unless there is a check that shows if they're mentally fit. One who decides this? What exactly constitutes mentally fit? If people didn't want to have their medical records seen by those during a firearms purchase (dealer, government, etc.) then does that prohibit them? It seems it would, so that means now you've violated their second amendment rights.

Now if there is a court ordered and mandated psychiatric treatment on the books, then that is different. It is public record that the person is to do this until the court at a later date believes them to no longer be a danger. As such that means by Federal Law a person can not buy a gun. Thus the person in this situation fits that, and thus the system wasn't either updated or given the red flags needed to warn the necessary people during a background check.

Again you want to throw various regulations and ideas that not only are unconstitutional but do nothing to fix the problems that allowed current laws that could have prevented this to have been used properly.

Also what is dated about the amendment?
 
Why should an FFL dealer have to worry about and check medical records to see if those purchasing weapons can do such? Also this wouldn't happen because it is a HIPAA violation and second amendment violation. You've essentially said in your view that people shouldn't be able to buy a gun unless there is a check that shows if they're mentally fit. One who decides this? What exactly constitutes mentally fit? If people didn't want to have their medical records seen by those during a firearms purchase (dealer, government, etc.) then does that prohibit them? It seems it would, so that means now you've violated their second amendment rights.
To me, I think this is where things can get really iffy and this is as someone who is not entirely against the idea of a medical evaluation being considered as a way to strengthen background checks overall. For one, how would a doctor file this so a firearms dealer can know the person is "cleared" to own a weapon? Does the doctor simply say the person is mentally & physically fit overall? Is this checkup done with or without the knowledge that the "patient" is trying to purchase a weapon? If so, what reasonable chance is it that a doctor may commit malpractice (I assume that's the correct terminology?) because of their own stance? And as you said, people do not want their medical records seen, so what information is the dealer given to make the sale valid? And then of course, again as you said, who decides what's mentally fit? I've seen danoff & I believe Northstar share this same stance; people vary so much internally.

Like I said, this is an area I think has good intentions and could work to strengthen a background check, but it's got soooo many complications to carry out. It feels like if it was implemented, the first year or so would be full of hick-ups and would have to be tested and rolled out slowly across the US to ensure it works & that's assuming the foundation behind it didn't have its own kinks.
 
Permit? You can already purchase guns without a background check as long as you have a CCW in some states. Which requires a training program to get which I have done myself even. Even though my state no longer requires it for me to carry concealed.

Why should an FFL dealer have to worry about and check medical records to see if those purchasing weapons can do such? Also this wouldn't happen because it is a HIPAA violation and second amendment violation. You've essentially said in your view that people shouldn't be able to buy a gun unless there is a check that shows if they're mentally fit. One who decides this? What exactly constitutes mentally fit? If people didn't want to have their medical records seen by those during a firearms purchase (dealer, government, etc.) then does that prohibit them? It seems it would, so that means now you've violated their second amendment rights.

Now if there is a court ordered and mandated psychiatric treatment on the books, then that is different. It is public record that the person is to do this until the court at a later date believes them to no longer be a danger. As such that means by Federal Law a person can not buy a gun. Thus the person in this situation fits that, and thus the system wasn't either updated or given the red flags needed to warn the necessary people during a background check.

Again you want to throw various regulations and ideas that not only are unconstitutional but do nothing to fix the problems that allowed current laws that could have prevented this to have been used properly.

Also what is dated about the amendment?

That was I what I was worried about. The only real defense always comes down to the 2nd amendment. The seller should not worry about giving out permits, but another government agency similar to how the DMV operates. The seller should check if the permit is legal and correct. A mental test is not that difficult and is mainly checking out medical mental history and perhaps a simple aptitude test and simple physical.

What is dated in my opinion about the 2nd amendment? It was added in a time of slavery and disunity. Also when guns were single action and using flint and balls. Weapons are now much more dangerous then back then. In my opinion no person, without proper checks and training, should own a weapon that kills people. You are acting like its a human right. Well in my opinion its not. Which other modern country has written such an amendment in their constitution?

Wouldnt these actions reduce mass shootings?

It actually is, just depends on the state and its laws.

Handguns, iirc, must be transferred to a FFL in your state of residence before you take ownership. I believe it's advised to handle any gun transaction this way for your own benefit.

Why are you advocating stricter gun laws and then saying things like this? This is already a serious offense in the US.

I amreferring to person who is planning a mass shooting. I dont think he/she will care about 5 years imprisoment and other punishments.

added response to @McLaren
 
Last edited:
Sorry which post exactly?

These ones...

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.



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.

Do you have any actual understanding of U.S. gun laws or even just U.S. laws in general? I mean technically yes stealing a gun is a way to circumvent a background check, but you would be committing at least 1 felony in the process.

Still waiting on a reply to my previous post by the way.

Pretty much everything apart from the medical exams is already a law to some extent.
 
These ones...

I already described my proposal to at least try to prevent future mass shootings.
My opinion was that the 2nd amendment should be amended. If any of the people who initiated had to get a permit (with the medical test and check, training and tests) wouldnt the majority of mass shootings have been prevented? The only way is to steal from a gun owner. That should be prevented by strict carrying and storage requirements that come with the permit, to make it difficult to steal.
 
If any of the people who initiated had to get a permit (with the medical test and check, training and tests) wouldnt the majority of mass shootings have been prevented?

Not really since most that have legally bought the gun have either had no history of mental issues or have had so many issues that the current laws should have prevented them from buying the guns, but if nobody enforces the law it doesn't really work.
 
Not really since most that have legally bought the gun have either had no history of mental issues or have had so many issues that the current laws should have prevented them from buying the guns, but if nobody enforces the law it doesn't really work.

You arent understanding my proposal. They need training and tests under supervision, which cost time and money. Hopefully red flags would already appeared by then. The seller is required to check any permit on the legality of the permit in a database. It isnt fullproof but should prevent a majority. It works in other countries.
 
You arent understanding my proposal. They need training and tests under supervision, which cost time and money. Hopefully red flags would already appeared by then. The seller is required to check any permit on the legality of the permit in a database. It isnt fullproof but should prevent a majority. It works in other countries.

And you aren't understanding the fact these "proposals" of yours are already in effect! Unless you plan on never leaving your house with the gun you will have to go to classes and receive training to legally posses the gun. Even than you are required to have guns secured when stored.

The problem is that those tasked with actually enforcing the laws do a rather 🤬 job of it as we've seen time and time again.

I have no problem with foreign people debating U.S. policy, but if you're not even going to do some research or even listen to other people that are trying to inform you, I'm not going to respond any further to your posts.
 
1) Waiting periods would be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS because the 2nd Amendment guarantees individuals the right the bear arms.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Stipulations pertaining to rights and how they apply do not constitute revocation of rights.


You're not even from the US, so your opinion doesn't mean jack in this instance.
I am, however, and it's my opinion that you're not in a position to make this sort of judgement. You can disagree with such opinions, but nowhere in the forum guidelines is it stated that the validity of users' opinions is restricted geographically.
 
And you aren't understanding the fact these "proposals" of yours are already in effect! Unless you plan on never leaving your house with the gun you will have to go to classes and receive training to legally posses the gun. Even than you are required to have guns secured when stored.

The problem is that those tasked with actually enforcing the laws do a rather 🤬 job of it as we've seen time and time again.

I have no problem with foreign people debating U.S. policy, but if you're not even going to do some research or even listen to other people that are trying to inform you, I'm not going to respond any further to your posts.

Yes I understood, but I am debating with multiple people here. So my apologies if you feel I am not listening to you. :cheers:
Is there a permit requirement/ or license in place? I responded to you information that these requirement should be implemented in all states. How are the mass shooting statistics who have these requirements?

You're not even from the US, so your opinion doesn't mean jack in this instance.

I am just voicing my opinion here. Chill dude.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Stipulations pertaining to rights and how they apply do not constitute revocation of rights.



I am, however, and it's my opinion that you're not in a position to make this sort of judgement. You can disagree with such opinions, but nowhere in the forum guidelines is it stated that the validity of users' opinions is restricted geographically.

My rethoric was that pro gunpeople and an organisation like the NRA who are backed by gunmanufacturers use the 2nd amendment as their ultimate defense. Any law resticting the amendement is spinned as "taking away your constitutional right".

In my opinion its better to have a mentally unstable person swinging around with a knife then using a gun/rifle. (both are still bad)


edit: added response to @TexRex
 
Last edited:
I amreferring to person who is planning a mass shooting. I dont think he/she will care about 5 years imprisoment and other punishments.
If they're not going to care about their punishment being a 5-year sentence and then some, what makes you think these guidelines will matter?

  • 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.
 
If they're not going to care about their punishment being a 5-year sentence and then some, what makes you think these guidelines will matter?

To make it harder for him/her to obtain a firearm. If you think it doesnt work then look at countries with strict gunlaws. More guns per capita = more shootings per capita.
 
To make it harder for him/her to obtain a firearm. If you think it doesnt work then look at countries with strict gunlaws. More guns per capita = more shootings.
You said earlier a criminal's only resort after your guidelines to make it harder:
The only way is to steal from a gun owner. That should be prevented by strict carrying and storage requirements that come with the permit, to make it difficult to steal.
Except this already happens in the US with the current gun laws in place.

A study 10 years ago in Pittsburgh reached the following conclusion:
In the study, led by epidemiologist Anthony Fabio of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health, researchers partnered with the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police to trace the origins of all 893 firearms that police recovered from crime scenes in the year 2008.
79% - Perpetrator was carrying a firearm owned by someone else.
18% - Perpetrator was legal owner of gun.
3% - Unknown
Many of these guns are acquired through straw-purchases as well, which neither your guidelines or any guidelines, will really stop.
 
You said earlier a criminal's only resort after your guidelines to make it harder:

Except this already happens in the US with the current gun laws in place.

A study 10 years ago in Pittsburgh reached the following conclusion:

Many of these guns are acquired through straw-purchases as well, which neither your guidelines or any guidelines, will really stop.

No you dont understand the goal I am debating for. The goal is less guns.
79% of 93 is still better then 79% of 893.

Edit: I live in a <5 guns per 100 citizen country.

0123gunspercapita.png
 
No you dont understand the goal I am debating for. The goal is less guns.
These charts have nothing to do with your guideline. You were already called out by @Northstar for failing to acknowledge the current laws already in place, and you are doing it again. You claimed a criminal would have to steal a weapon with your more strict guidelines in place to commit a crime. That already happens.

All your guideline does is make it harder to get a gun. It does not automatically stop a criminal from stealing a weapon or stopping straw-purchases. If your goal is somehow, to limit the amount of gun owners, it's not going to deter theft. Using the well loved Australia as the basis for all gun debates, gun theft is still there and legal owners became primary targets.
DESPERATE offenders are resorting to violent home invasions targeting lawful gun owners in a concerning crime spate in Toowoomba.

It was the second violent home invasion in as many days, with a Glenvale property targeted by men police believe had targeted registered firearms.

Darling Downs Detective Inspector Dave Isherwood said the incidents were concerning, and investigations were continuing into the motives behind the invasions.

"Police are concerned that offenders are going to such extreme measures to try and get property to obviously fuel their illegal activities," Det. Insp. Isherwood said.

"Our concern is they are targeting people who are firearms owners.

"There has been an increase in firearms theft across Queensland and one only recently in Chinchilla.
https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/who-desperate-offenders-target-in-city-crime-spate/3138975/
 
These charts have nothing to do with your guideline. You were already called out by @Northstar for failing to acknowledge the current laws already in place, and you are doing it again. You claimed a criminal would have to steal a weapon with your more strict guidelines in place to commit a crime. That already happens.

All your guideline does is make it harder to get a gun. It does not automatically stop a criminal from stealing a weapon or stopping straw-purchases. If your goal is somehow, to limit the amount of gun owners, it's not going to deter theft. Using the well loved Australia as the basis for all gun debates, gun theft is still there and legal owners became primary targets.

https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/who-desperate-offenders-target-in-city-crime-spate/3138975/

I wasnt called out. I was proposing that the usa change their 2nd amendment to reduce the amount of guns sold. Yes criminals steal guns to commit crimes, but there are many more who commit crimes with legally bought guns. If it is harder to buy a gun the result will be l;ess guns and then my proposition is already succesfull. eradicating all crime is almost impossible but greatly reducing is already a great step. Less guns = Less gun theft. How is this logic not sound?

Thanks for bringing up australia. So how many mass shootings have occured in the past decade compared to the USA?
 
I need a link for this outlandish claim.
Again look at Chicago.
I am talking about mass shootings here. In the end my opinions is less guns = less gun deaths. If you dont agree suit yourself. I just hope your country can steer itself away from mass shootings one way or another.
 
Look at Chicago. :lol:
Again look at Chicago.
'Kay.

The handgun ban made us the primary target of the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, and in 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court forced Chicago to fall into line with the rest of the country.

Since then, the courts have peeled off so many layers of our once stellar gun ordinance that it’s barely recognizable. We’re still maneuvering to keep gun stores and shooting ranges from opening in the city limits. But the courts have ruled against us on that, too, so we know it’s just a matter of time.

Remember that old requirement that gun owners in Chicago register their firearms with the city and obtain a permit? Well, that’s gone too.

And thanks to the Illinois General Assembly, which was pressured by the federal courts to pass a concealed carry law in 2013, people can walk the streets of Chicago with a gun attached to their waist and another strapped to their ankle.

Sorry, gun lovers, your attempts to use Chicago as a prop to bolster your claims that gun control laws do nothing to curb gun violence just don’t hold up.

New York, in fact, has stricter gun laws on the books than Chicago. And guess what? Its homicide numbers are heading toward historic lows. Los Angeles has some pretty tough gun laws too. Its homicide numbers also pale compared with Chicago’s.

Those kinds of details don’t fit the conservative, pro-gun narrative, though. To use New York as a talking point, they’d have to admit that strict gun laws might actually have an impact on homicide rates.
So...what about Chicago?

-------------------------------

For someone who frequently claims to pay no mind to the right-wing talking heads and instead rely on gut instinct, you parrot their talking points kind of perfectly. This is particularly disheartening when one factors in your propensity to denigrate others for getting suckered by what you claim to be false narratives and suggest they seek alternate sources.

I know, I know...you're tired of me breaking down everything you say and as such you've opted to ignore me, but here I am, hat in hand, respectfully suggesting you reevaluate the way you take in information--not even alternate sources, just how you accept and regurgitate what they say--and that you adopt a less pejorative and adversarial stance.

It should be known that this is not to be interpreted as me telling another how to participate in this forum, as a certain someone is inclined to do [hypocritically even], and that I'm compelled to make such an acknowledgement is, frankly, disgusting.
 
Back