Mass shooting at Madden tournament in Jacksonville

[ryzno]

Begging forgiveness if my response wasn't delivered as promptly as you would have liked. I opted to employ more care in responding to comments that I deemed more worthy of response; counterfactuals are low on the totem pole.

You are forgiven, carry on.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Are you willing to live in a world where everyone is carrying a gun for their protection?

I already kind of do, since I'm from Houston. Not to mention I've also gone to events where open-carry was a thing, and not once was there ever a misfire, or someone getting hurt for that matter.

 

[Dan_]

Potentially productive? Absolutely! More productive? Well that depends on one's perspective. Indeed a discussion isn't likely to go anywhere when participants are unwilling to acknowledge every aspect of it.

Interesting, you had the lead to make a valid point on psychological evaluation but nah, not worth it when I'm so narrow minded.

How do you evaluate potential psychopaths and why someone so far removed from reality would abide by the legal path of gun ownership?

His targets were inside the GLHF Game Bar which shares space with Chicago Pizza at the Jacksonville Landing indoor marketplace.

I suppose he could have approached from the north along Hogan St and cut across greenscape avoiding trees on the way to the shared entrance, but vehicles don't tend to carry a significant amount of speed once they collide with structures. More to the point...he didn't.

So the only opportunity for the assailant to kill his hecklers would be at said tournament? In a world of social media frenzy is there no possibility that he could've tracked down his targets and killed them anyway?

The mall layout is irrelevant to his motive.

This incident represents a number of failings culminating in what ultimately transpired--it isn't any one thing.

Good, we agree on something. So the solution should be as equally multifaceted and take into account all aspects, including the civil right of self defense, agree?

Do we agree that simple maths aren't representative of the issue? Do we agree that draconian policies that intend on limiting civilian rights while not addressing all other "failings" are not the answer to the issue?

Then I'll have no qualm as to what you posted.

 

[Obelisk]

In a world of social media frenzy is there no possibility that he could've tracked down his targets and killed them anyway?

Oh, you'd be terrified of how easy it is to reverse-search an individual and find out who they are and where they live. He could, for example, figure out a rival's home town with a few searches and some note-taking. But then that goes straight into pre-meditated murder.

 

[McLaren]

So my conclusion is to reduce the number of guns. As a result these symtoms will go down. Is that so wrong of me?

"If we have less legal gun owners, there will be less guns to steal, therefore, less mass shootings."

This is 1 step away from believing, "If there's no legal gun owners, there will be no guns to steal, and no shootings to commit."

 

[BobK]

Since you ask, one presumes you're comfortable addressing a response...so what does the Second Amendment mean to you? What do you suppose it meant to those responsible for it being drafted? How do you feel the existence of a standing military for just about as long as the Constitution has been in effect bears out the significance of the Second Amendment?

For your first question, the Second Amendment is an attempt to guarantee a last ditch line of defense against an oppressive government. I refer you to the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. For your second question, I haven't a clue. What does the Second Amendment have to do with the draft (which itself I feel is unconstitutional per the Fourteenth Amendment)? For the third question, I'm really not sure what it is you're asking.

 

[TexRex]

Yes, to be blunt.

Howsabout a little sharper? As others have invoked in this very discussion, "where do you draw the line?" What constitutes protection?

Interesting, you had the lead to make a valid point on psychological evaluation

Sure I could have, but hasn't that been done to death even in this thread alone?

but nah, not worth it when I'm so narrow minded.

Your words. Mine did not single you out, however. Any attempt to further not single you out would require singling others out and it wasn't my intention to single anyone out.

That it was a response to you directly (by way of forum-enabled quotation) is only indicative of you presenting the issue that I was addressing.

How do you evaluate potential psychopaths and why someone so far removed from reality would abide by the legal path of gun ownership?

I wouldn't have the slightest idea as it isn't my area of expertise--I'm inclined to defer to those whose expertise it is.

A logical step in the process is to determine the nature of the problem and just how pervasive it is, but the government agency best suited to such efforts is impeded by the gun lobby swinging the Second Amendment like a hammer to the knees.

So the only opportunity for the assailant to kill his hecklers would be at said tournament? In a world of social media frenzy is there no possibility that he could've tracked down his targets and killed them anyway?

The mall layout is irrelevant to his motive.

Counterfactuals. What he could have done is irrelevant; what's pertinent is what he did.

Good, we agree on something.

Hey...whaddayaknow?

So the solution should be as equally multifaceted and take into account all aspects, including the civil right of self defense, agree?

I don't. The quoted text refers to a specific instance that isn't in need of a solution. We know who did what and how, and while we don't fully grasp why it was done (largely because it involves the issue of mental health which we also don't fully grasp, as evidenced by failure to address it effectively in this instance as well as countless others), none of those actually solve the problem that is a horrendous act that was executed.

And just as it was in response to the quoted text, invoking the notion of any supposed rights suggests an interpretation of the events wherein the assailant purchased a firearm on the pretense of defense and engaged his victims under said pretense. I think such an interpretation is absurd.

Do we agree that simple maths aren't representative of the issue?

Would you look at that? I think we do!

Do we agree that draconian policies that intend on limiting civilian rights while not addressing all other "failings" are not the answer to the issue?

Hup! You lost me again.

I'm more than willing to engage in polite discussion but I won't be party to participants skewing it to suit their narrative just as I suspect you wouldn't appreciate me addressing the right small children in the schoolyard have to not be gunned down by a far-off assailant from whom they have no reasonable chance to defend themselves.

Reframe the question sans the subjective patter and I'll take a stab at it.

Oh, you'd be terrified of how easy it is to reverse-search an individual and find out who they are and where they live. He could, for example, figure out a rival's home town with a few searches and some note-taking. But then that goes straight into pre-meditated murder.

Is...is that worse?

For your first question, the Second Amendment is an attempt to guarantee a last ditch line of defense against an oppressive government. I refer you to the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

Would you be so kind as to softball it in for me? While I'm familiar with the overarching theme of the preamble, I'm sorry to say that I'm presently unable to recall it in enough detail to link it to the response provided...and I'm sure I'm not alone.

For your second question, I haven't a clue.

My apologies if I presented that as though there's a correct answer, as that wasn't my intention. The authors drafted it for a reason and I asked what you believe that reason to be.

I'm of the belief that a standing military was seen as a potentially oppressive force if wielded unjustly by a governing body. As such, the citizens' right to bear arms and congregate as an organized militia was deemed imperative to ensure freedom. Funnily enough (not "haha" funny, of course), I believe governing bodies unjustly discriminated against certain peoples who they deemed unqualified for such a right based on external characteristics.

Do I know this to be the case? No. Might others disagree? I have no doubt.

What does the Second Amendment have to do with the draft (which itself I feel is unconstitutional per the Fourteenth Amendment)?

Indeed. Conscription has more to do with a standind military than it does the Second Amendment.

For what it's worth, I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea (admittedly it's easy for me to say that having not been subject to it), but it's been implemented for causes that the people didn't overwhelmingly support, which necessitated it, and the way such events bore out lends credence to the idea that such causes were unjust.

Having said that, the quoted question strikes me as whataboutism, but I answered anyway with hopes that you'd indulge me further.

For the third question, I'm really not sure what it is you're asking.

Fair enough.

To my mind, it's linked significantly to the second question. A standing military has indeed been present in the United States for about as long as the Constitution has been in effect. Given such, I'm of the belief that that invalidates the Second Amendment in part as the latter was drafted in an effort to precipitate the former and I feel the word of it and need for it should be reevaluated.

I don't take issue with the Second Amendment itself, rather the way it's wielded.

Finally, if you (@BobK) think this particular discussion is better suited to a more appropriate thread (I'm inclined to believe it is), feel free to respond to it there and I won't hesitate to continue. I didn't want to act as such and result in you being less inclined to respond.

 

[Obelisk]

Is...is that worse?

It was an observation of how the situation would get viewed legally. That's the difference between first degree and second degree murder. It's kind of a moot point since the shooter's dead, though.

Howsabout a little sharper? As others have invoked in this very discussion, "where do you draw the line?" What constitutes protection?

I would perhaps say handguns are about what would be an acceptable choice for protection in most situations outside of the home, and shotguns for home use. Anything more than that is overkill and not really necessary.

Honestly, I don't see the need for things like .223 or .308 rifles outside of hunting purposes (and even then, shotguns still do a better job).

 

[TexRex]

It was an observation of how the situation would get viewed legally. That's the difference between first degree and second degree murder. It's kind of a moot point since the shooter's dead, though.


I would perhaps say handguns are about what would be an acceptable choice for protection in most situations outside of the home, and shotguns for home use. Anything more than that is overkill and not really necessary.

Honestly, I don't see the need for things like .223 or .308 rifles outside of hunting purposes (and even then, shotguns still do a better job).

Now see, that's just a great response. Thank you.

A couple things:

I like where your head is at with regards to firearm type for protection purposes, but I was actually referring to scenario. For example, I suspect few would object to the notion that fending off what may potentially be a malarial mosquito with a semi-automatic rifle when there's a crowd of people on the other side of it being just ridiculous, but there are other instances that likely aren't as clear-cut.

And this isn't the appropriate place for such discussion, but weapon choice should revolve around the game being hunted.

 

[Obelisk]

And this isn't the appropriate place for such discussion, but weapon choice should revolve around the game being hunted.

You're correct there. I believe the Real Guns thread in the Rumble Strip may be better? I don't know of a hunting thread (and it would be AUP unfriendly for one anyways).

but there are other instances that likely aren't as clear-cut.

Can you clarify this? The statement (and the paragraph before it) feels like a question as a statement to me - and i apologize if you didn't intend to do that and I misinterpreted it.

 

[TexRex]

Can you clarify this? The statement (and the paragraph before it) feels like a question as a statement to me - and i apologize if you didn't intend to do that and I misinterpreted it.

I may have nerfed it, I'm tired.

I think most would agree the mosquito hypothetical is absurd, but other scenarios may be much more subjective.

I don't mean for this to derail the thread, but consider the Michael Drejka incident also in Florida:

With witness and video accounts available, I strongly believe he, emboldened by his being armed, put himself into a situation (and had done so on multiple prior occasions) where an altercation he initiated may turn physical and in which he could use lethal force. Such a situation isn't nearly as clear-cut because it's subject to interpretation regarding when he decided to use lethal force.

 

[Obelisk]

Oh, that incident.

I suppose that vagueness comes from a loose interpretation of what actually constitutes as self defense. I'm not super familiar with the Drejka incident outside of the actual encounter, so I can't personally comment on it.

The most important thing I can think of regarding that self defense question is setting boundaries for what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable - although I've heard that many cases simply involved a gun being drawn with no lethal force being applied (the imploed intent to use lethal force was sufficient to deter the assailant. In the case of Drejka (i've seen the footage), the other gentleman seemed to be de-escalating and getting ready to walk awaty in the short time before Drejka pulled his weapon.

If this doesn't make sense, I apologize. It's been a long day and my critical thinking skills are away on lunch.

 

[TexRex]

If this doesn't make sense, I apologize. It's been a long day and my critical thinking skills are away on lunch.

I got it just fine, so either it was worded right or your compromised state matches my compromised state perfectly.

 

[Dan_]

...invoking the notion of any supposed rights suggests an interpretation of the events wherein the assailant purchased a firearm on the pretense of defense and engaged his victims under said pretense. I think such an interpretation is absurd.

It only suggests such ludicrous interpretation if you're already biased to believe this.

I'm clearly stating that a psychopath can't be used as a frame of reference for the psyche of the average american, I'm clearly stating that hysteria over outliers should not be used as an excuse to reform the constitution and strip the common folk of fundamental rights. I postulate that the status quo should not be changed over something that is not fully understood.

I live in a country that does not have a constitution that protects the people from the goverment, you do. You don't value that as much as I do, and that's ok.

I'm more than willing to engage in polite discussion but I won't be party to participants skewing it to suit their narrative just as I suspect you wouldn't appreciate me addressing the right small children in the schoolyard have to not be gunned down by a far-off assailant from whom they have no reasonable chance to defend themselves.

You talk about "failings" but you don't enumerate any of them, so it's hard to have an open minded discussion when navigating murky waters. Subjectivity is self-feeding.

Reframe the question sans the subjective patter and I'll take a stab at it.

Will do:

In a situation where those same children were to be gunned down in their own home by an invading assailant, should their parents not have the option of having means of defending their offspring?

 

[the_boy]

We should just legalize killing, because bad guys don’t care about laws.

 

[McLaren]

We should just legalize killing, because bad guys don’t care about laws.

Maybe we should? I mean, the guy in here advocating stricter gun laws has already said bad guys will just steal guns without worrying about the punishment of current laws. Not sure why he believes his proposal will make anything harder if there's so many guns already.

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.

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

 

[TexRex]

It only suggests such ludicrous interpretation if you're already biased to believe this.

I'm sorry, are you privy to such information as under what pretense the assailant purchased the firearms, and whether they were ever used in accordance to such intent if that pretense was that of protection?

I'm clearly stating that a psychopath can't be used as a frame of reference for the psyche of the average american

I'm inclined to agree.

I'm clearly stating that hysteria over outliers should not be used as an excuse to reform the constitution and strip the common folk of fundamental rights.

Aaaaand you lost me again...

From its drafting, peoples' entitlement to what the Constitution affords them has been conditional and those conditions have changed over time. Hysteria over outliers led to people and their offspring once treated as property being reclassified as the common folk and subsequently entitled to what the rest of the common folk were entitled to, with that entitlement also changing over time and differing across the land.

And the right of one to defend themselves is fundamental, but what one is permitted to utilize in defending themselves is not without limitations.

I postulate that the status quo should not be changed over something that is not fully understood.

I can align myself with such a postulation, but not if no attempt to understand something is made and definitely not if such attempts are stifled by gun advocacy groups.

I live in a country that does not have a constitution that protects the people from the goverment, you do.

Euhm...okay? Am I to assume a "neener neener" is in order? Or maybe "USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!" is more appropriate...

You don't value that as much as I do, and that's ok.

You cannot accurately infer from my comments the degree to which I value what the Constitution affords me, and such an implication is precisely why I responded to the last remark in the manner that I did.

I appreciate what's contained in the Constitution to the extent that I have never acted in any manner that has the potential to negatively impact the entitlements it provides.

What I don't appreciate is the manner in which individuals and groups wield it like a blunt instrument when it's in their interest to do so and then treat it with indifference when it proves to be an inconvenience.

You talk about "failings" but you don't enumerate any of them, so it's hard to have an open minded discussion when navigating murky waters. Subjectivity is self-feeding.

Now see, that marks the first time anyone asked me to do so and despite my belief that it shouldn't be difficult to figure out what failings occurred, I'm indeed willing to elaborate.

1) Mental illness wasn't addressed in a meaningful, lasting manner.

2) The existence of mental illness wasn't brought to the attention of firearm purveyor(s) or its existence was disregarded...the former being more likely.

3) The event should not have taken place at the venue in which it did without the venue being verified as suitable for the event and occupancy. This failing has led to legal action against the venue and the event sponsor.

4) Neither the venue nor the event sponsor provided adequate security for the event. This failing has led to legal action against the venue and the event sponsor.

I acknowledge that some of these failings are more easily addressed than others. I also acknowledge that some of these failings are easily transferrable or omitted in the absence of specific details regarding this incident. I don't automatically reject any other possible failings simply because I haven't listed them.

In a situation where those same children were to be gunned down in their own home by an invading assailant, should their parents not have the option of having means of defending their offspring?

If circumstances are such that they ought not have access to certain means of defending their offspring, they ought not have access to those means.

I believe:

If an individual has demonstrated a propensity to engage in violent behavior, either due to mental illness or wanton disregard for the welfare of others, they ought not have access to firearms even as a means to defend themselves and/or their offspring. They ought not be responsible for supposed offspring for that matter.

If an individual has demonstrated a propensity to engage in behavior documented as affecting cognitive processing, such as the consumption of illicit, mind-altering substances, they ought not have access to firearms even as a means to defend themselves and/or their offspring. They ought not be responsible for supposed offspring for that matter.

If an individual fails to observe safe and secure storage of firearms in the presence of their offspring, they ought not have access to firearms even as a means to defend themselves and/or their offspring.

If an individual fails to observe safe and secure storage of firearms in a reasonable effort to prevent unlawful acquisition of said firearms in the event of a robbery, they ought not have access to firearms even as a means to defend themselves and/or their offspring.

I really don't think those positions are all that extreme, and would you believe I even consider an aspect of current laws to be excessive?

I don't believe:

An individual convicted of a felony wherein violence is not inherent--financial crimes for instance--should not* be precluded from owning the same firearms entitled to those not subject to the stipulations listed above once the terms of their sentencing have been met.

That said, the lack of a violent component in their conviction doesn't indicate the absence of an inherent violent component--such as [but not limited to**] in the commission of robbery or distribution of drugs.

*Edit to omit.
**Edit to add.

 

[Dan_]

I'm sorry, are you privy to such information as under what pretense the assailant purchased the firearms, and whether they were ever used in accordance to such intent if that pretense was that of protection?

This is just baseless conjecture.

From its drafting, peoples' entitlement to what the Constitution affords them has been conditional and those conditions have changed over time. Hysteria over outliers led to people and their offspring once treated as property being reclassified as the common folk and subsequently entitled to what the rest of the common folk were entitled to, with that entitlement also changing over time and differing across the land.

So because slavery was abolished you think the constitution should not be imutable. The whole constitution is not being discussed here and you know that, should we revoke the rights to private property too because of the millenial communist hysteria? You're only detracting from your own point by making a comparison without any substance and then ridiculing other posters when they do so.

And the right of one to defend themselves is fundamental, but what one is permitted to utilize in defending themselves is not without limitations.

You talk about me having a narrative and swerving the discussion to fit that, yet you again make the bogus suggestion that one can interpret the shooter's actions as self defense from what I wrote. That's intellectual dishonesty at it's best.

Euhm...okay? Am I to assume a "neener neener" is in order? Or maybe "USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!" is more appropriate...

I'm going to look past this condescending BS, you must feel cool when you suggest you like to having a polite discussion and then veers into this...

I appreciate what's contained in the Constitution to the extent that I have never acted in any manner that has the potential to negatively impact the entitlements it provides.

So why push the anti-gun agenda?

What I don't appreciate is the manner in which individuals and groups wield it like a blunt instrument when it's in their interest to do so and then treat it with indifference when it proves to be an inconvenience.

Yes, big gun industry is evil and bad for lobbying. The average citizen is dumb for wanting the option of having any means of deterrence if such goverment turns on them, so their opinion doesn't matter. Only the brilliant intellectuals in the government can solve this, right? Never mind the dissuasive power of firearm ownership, it's bad because it's bad.

1) Mental illness wasn't addressed in a meaningful, lasting manner.

You stated it was when I pointed out psychological background checks:

Sure I could have, but hasn't that been done to death even in this thread alone?

2) The existence of mental illness wasn't brought to the attention of firearm purveyor(s) or its existence was disregarded...the former being more likely.

What are "they" supposed to do if you admit there's no easy solution? Just stop selling firearms and let the good people on the goverment decide what's best?

The issue is ID'ing psychos. It's not exclusive to the gun industry, it's universal within society.

3) The event should not have taken place at the venue in which it did without the venue being verified as suitable for the event and occupancy. This failing has led to legal action against the venue and the event sponsor.

Conterfactual. What and where could it have taken place is irrelevant since tragedy has already struck.

4) Neither the venue nor the event sponsor provided adequate security for the event. This failing has led to legal action against the venue and the event sponsor.

Having more armed security would help? Would you just look at that?

If circumstances are such that they ought not have access to certain means of defending their offspring, they ought not have access to those means.

You demand that I do not formulate the question within a subjective frame, I reformat the question. You answer it with pure subjectivity:

I believe:

"has demonstrated a propensity to engage in violent behavior"

You admitted you're not a psychologist, you can't formulate what that entails with certainty. If I get myself into a brawl into high school, will the government prohibit me of owning a firearm in the future? Where's the line?

"propensity to engage in behavior documented as affecting cognitive processing, such as the consumption of illicit, mind-altering substances",

How do you define someone as an alcooholic? Smoking pot recreatively should also be classified within the above?

"individual fails to observe safe and secure storage of firearms in the presence of their offspring"

A child can never touch a firearm even with supervision? Should I disassemble my Glock, put it into a safe and then bury it? Where's the line?

You just keep evoking subjective goalposts to conceal your viewpoint.

It's hard to promote dialogue over any issue when you don't have the spine to come out and say that the SA should be revoked. You admit you can't even identify where the solution comes from, yet you want the status quo to be changed over by goverment "specialists". You see that as a step forward, the majority would disagree and this thread shows.

Holiday is over, I've got work to do.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

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.

And again that has been explained in great detail, yet again you are unwilling to read what has been written, still proposing a situation that only restricts normal people who aren't look to perpetrate a crime but potentially protect themselves from it. Yet you've said nothing on anything I've pointed at which is factual, and instead gone to hypothetical that have been tried prior, shown to not work. During the assault weapon ban we still had Columbine happen, still had the Beltway Sniper happen still had other shooting events happen, during a time frame where such guns were impossible to buy and those that did exist were very expensive to get ammunition from. They were also capped on magazine size.

More importantly the bigger issue you ignore that I brought up and don't seem to take much issue with (because you've already decided you know what works best), is the fact people don't report these offenses to the FBI so when a background check is done these people get flagged. If local authorities aren't mandated to do such and only do it on their volition then of course a guy that shouldn't have a gun is going to "legally" obtain one. So imagine if the system in place was utilized as it should be?

The only case I can think of it in recent history where this wouldn't have worked because the person had no issues and actually before perpetrating said crime could have been looked at as law abiding was the Vegas Shooter.

Are you willing to live in a world where everyone is carrying a gun for their protection?

In a sense, sure, because then you live in a system of mutually assured destruction.

On a more realistic note, I think other than your goal post moving and myopic outlook, my bigger issue with your view point is how tunnel visioned it is. Never once do you look at the bigger picture of this debate. You seem to be hooked by media where only mass shooting (a very tiny portion of the issue) seem to be an issue. Yet stats show that people die quite frequently by violent crimes in general. This isn't a mass shooting issue this is a people issue, and fixing that is key. If all you care about is the mass shootings, and not the various people who die state by state due to various forms of violence then all you want is to quell what the media has told you is a primary issue.

 

[Danoff]

I am talking about mass shootings here. In the end my opinions is less guns = less gun deaths.

As has been pointed out many times in many ways, nobody should concern themselves specifically with gun deaths. I don't want to be murdered, I don't have a preference whether I'm not murdered by a gun, not murdered by a knife, not murdered by a truck, not murdered by a bomb, or not murdered by a 767. "Gun deaths" is meaningless. It really is. If you squash gun deaths but knife deaths rise by the same amount, you have accomplished nothing.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

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.

Because the second amendment is constitutional law, which is pretty important, similar to the other amendments in said constitution.

As for an agency, what would be the point of having gun sellers get an FFL if you're just going to have an agency do the job essentially and tell them when, who and what they can sell to a person. When the current system done correctly actually works? It's very confusing what you're not understanding about this. Also how would the seller check if the permit is legal and correct? It's akin to having a fake I.D. going to a liquor store and getting a 12 pack. "Well the minimum wage store clerk should check if the buyer was legal and correct"

A mental test isn't that difficult? Wow you haven't a clue, lucky for you I have a spouse who is actually in the medical field for some time now, has worked on unit with these type of patients and has seen a wide spectrum. But it's so difficult to tell a normal person from that of a schizophrenic on their medication. Glad we have you here to clear that up gee this whole gun/mental health debate is so cut and dry, how has it not been solved. /s

A physical isn't going to help test competency so not sure why you've brought that up. I've seen 300 pound men shoot grouping better than 180 pound fit police officers during shooting competitions.

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?

Many guns today are still single action, varying action, double and single action, double action only, bolt, lever and on and on. There were plenty of people during the founding that were working on advancements. The founders knew about them and even saw some of these advancements come through as weapon technology grew with each battle at the end of the revolution and after. There was plenty of history they were well aware of that showed advancements from bow and arrow to gun power and guns and artillery, there were even rudimentary forms of rockets and explosives. Yet this argument where people think the founders were encapsulated in a moment of time and thought that said moment would always permeate through future history is a disservice to the actual conversation. Also to the SCOTUS who actually uses many documents beyond the Constitution to formulate their decisions. The Founders had many writings while constructing the constitution that gave way to the particular wording of said document. They didn't just decide to say "Right to bear arms...etc."

If you're going to be willing to have a debate/conversation and try to tackle the history of something unknown to you, then be prepared to look silly when you get it wrong.

Also it is a human right to protect yourself this goes all the way back to Hobbes and Locke. There is a distinct difference in killing someone and defending oneself, no one here is advocating killing and to misinterpret something like that because you're upset about the current situation of things doesn't help foster a conversation of growth.

Wouldnt these actions reduce mass shootings?

What actions? Haphazardly restricting any person who has any mental instability from owning something to protect themselves with? Throwing more laws and restrictions at a system not being utilized correctly in the first place that could stop these people from owning guns? Following [insert country's] model in regards to this situation, because you think that it's a black and white, quick fix situation? These are all things you've said, and you've clearly misunderstood my post.

Again for the final time. The situation isn't that simple, so either you ban all people from owning weapons and hope nothing bad happens, or you actually try to navigate the extensive difficulties of what I just explained and hope that system you create afterward works to best capacity.

 

[TexRex]

This is just baseless conjecture.

There's a lot of that going on, from a number of individuals with varying agendas. Interesting you point it out only when it's employed by someone with whom you disagree.

So because slavery was abolished you think the constitution should not be imutable. The whole constitution is not being discussed here and you know that, should we revoke the rights to private property too because of the millenial communist hysteria?

The abolishment of slavery didn't actually change what entitlements were afforded to the people, it made it so that more people were afforded those entitlements.

To quote another user on this forum: "Probably best to not conflate the two." Interesting that this user opted to "like" your post despite the faux pas, but that's probably because they too like to employ tactics that they opt to denigrate when used against them.

You're only detracting from your own point by making a comparison without any substance and then ridiculing other posters when they do so.

"I don't agree with you so I'm wilfully misinterpreting and misrepresenting your comments."

Nice. Such behavior is addressed by the fourth point of this forum's Acceptable Use Policy and future use of this tactic, beyond the post that these comments are in response to because it's indeed employed again, will result in me reporting it to the forum moderators.

And the right of one to defend themselves is fundamental, but what one is permitted to utilize in defending themselves is not without limitations.

You talk about me having a narrative and swerving the discussion to fit that, yet you again make the bogus suggestion that one can interpret the shooter's actions as self defense from what I wrote. That's intellectual dishonesty at it's best.

Huh? How does that response relate to the comment cited?

Because some are so fervent in the belief that firearms are crucial for self-defense (they're useful, but not crucial, and what makes them useful in this regard makes them useful in the commission of heinous acts such as the one around which this discussion thread revolves), I asked if the assailant was known to have implemented firearms under such a pretense at any point prior to or during the incident around which this discussion thread revolves.

I'm going to look past this condescending BS, you must feel cool when you suggest you like to having a polite discussion and then veers into this...

Addressing it isn't looking past it.

Interesting that you do manage to look past the acknowledgement that your condescending remark instigated mine and neglect to cite said acknowledgement in an effort to shirk culpability.

There's another user on this forum who has openly denigrated the act of not quoting text completely and while some texts have no bearing on comments, only serving to gild the lily, and as a result can be omitted without impacting the tone of the comments, the omission of text in an effort to change the context of comments is deplorable.

As I said, that overly-indulgent, condescending remark was in response to the baseless, condescending assertion that I don't appreciate something as much as you do in your lack of entitlement to it. You CANNOT infer that from my comments and yet you chose to do so openly.

This marks the second instance of you wilfully misinterpreting and misrepresenting my remarks in this post.

So why push the anti-gun agenda?

Where have I?

Yes, big gun industry is evil and bad for lobbying. The average citizen is dumb for wanting the option of having any means of deterrence if such goverment turns on them, so their opinion doesn't matter. Only the brilliant intellectuals in the government can solve this, right? Never mind the dissuasive power of firearm ownership, it's bad because it's bad.

Argumentum ad absurdum and further wilfull misinterpretation and misrepresentation of comments--you're on a roll.

You stated it was when I pointed out psychological background checks:

The notion of doing something about mental illness has been discussed to death in this thread.

The failing to which I was referring was the now deceased assailant in this incident not being treated in a meaningful, lasting manner.

What are "they" supposed to do if you admit there's no easy solution?

This failing suggests that someone didn't do their job, invoking "proper implementation and enforcement of existing laws and regulations".

That particular solution seems easy on the face of it but the failing would suggest that it isn't.

Just stop selling firearms and let the good people on the government decide what's best?

That would be an easy solution but I'm neither suggesting it nor do I approve of it--I feel like you know this. Something something misinterpretation and misrepresentation something something.

The issue is ID'ing psychos. It's not exclusive to the gun industry, it's universal within society.

I agree completely and have been of this belief all along, to the point that I acknowledged addressing the issue would be a win without even approaching the gun side. Maybe I'm not so opposed to firearm possession as you suggest.

I'd add that psychopaths are often easy to identify, but sociopaths that perpetrate these attacks frequently slip through the cracks.

Counterfactual. What and where could it have taken place is irrelevant since tragedy has already struck.

I acknowledged that such a failing could be transferred or omitted in the absence of specific details of this incident.

You opted to omit said acknowledgement and address the comment as though such an acknowledgement wasn't made, constituting willful misinterpretation and misrepresentation of remarks. You really can't help yourself, can you?

Having more armed security would help? Would you just look at that?

We can't know with certainty that it would have helped because it wasn't implemented. That said, I'm of the belief that it may well have helped and as such I presented the lack thereof as a failing.

You demand that I do not formulate the question within a subjective frame, I reformat the question. You answer it with pure subjectivity:

I demanded nothing, I merely acknowledged the conditions for my willingness to respond.

My own subjectivity is dictated by my not being in a position to define "a propensity" with regards to the law as I don't present myself as a legal mind. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be defined, as ambiguity in law benefits those who did not draft it.

You admitted you're not a psychologist, you can't formulate what that entails with certainty.

Yep, the latter is a direct result of the former.

If I get myself into a brawl into high school, will the government prohibit me of owning a firearm in the future?

I'm of the belief that a single incident does not a propensity make.

Ambiguous, I know. Obviously it should be defined further in law and that definition should not be unknown by those affected by it, which is everyone under law.

Where's the line?

Indeed.

How do you define someone as an alcooholic? Smoking pot recreatively should also be classified within the above?

I don't define someone as an alcoholic because I'm not in a position to do so under law. That said, if someone under my employ frequently appears for work while obviously inebriated and their work is negatively affected as a result, I can begin termination proceedings on the basis of the individual not being an effective member of my staff. I'm fortunate in that this situation hasn't manifested before me.

Yes, smoking pot should be classified within the above.

Funny enough, laws revolving around the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of either of these have been implemented in the interest of public safety.

A child can never touch a firearm even with supervision?

Hoooooly crap on a cracker...



Gee, I really don't think a firearm that a child is handling under adult supervision is really in a state of storage. You managed to quote that portion of the text while omitting other portions and still you missed it by a mile.

Should I disassemble my Glock, put it into a safe and then bury it?

Argumentum ad absurdum. Classy.

Where's the line?

Indeed.

You just keep evoking subjective goalposts to conceal your viewpoint.

My viewpoint is and has always been that attempts to understand all issues at play around this incident and countless others should be made, and that these attempts ought not be stifled on the basis of absurd presumptions of rights infringement.

It's hard to promote dialogue over any issue when you don't have the spine to come out and say that the SA should be revoked.

Wow. So while willfully misinterpreting and misrepresenting my remarks, you opt to shell out personal digs. Nice.

I don't come out and say that because I don't believe that and I don't feel that anything I have said suggests I believe that.

You admit you can't even identify where the solution comes from

Readily and repeatedly because I'm not in a position to do so.

you want the status quo to be changed over by goverment "specialists".

If the status quo is wanton disregard for an understanding of the issues at play around this incident and countless others.

You see that as a step forward, the majority would disagree and this thread shows.

I think it's time for you to start showing your work.

Holiday is over, I've got work to do.

Euhm...kewl?

 

[PocketZeven]

I appreciate you finding it humorous but I wonder if the time it took to acknowledge such might have been better utilized by considering the arguments of others as well as your own.

If you read my posts you will have noticed I consider other arguments as well, but in my opinion the amount of guns is the first problem that should be tackled.

"If we have less legal gun owners, there will be less guns to steal, therefore, less mass shootings."

This is 1 step away from believing, "If there's no legal gun owners, there will be no guns to steal, and no shootings to commit."

That is perhaps true. But again I want to refer you to developed countries with low gunownership. Legal ownership is allowed if you abide the rules and reqirements. I personally believe legal ownership under strict laws should be allowed.

And again that has been explained in great detail, yet again you are unwilling to read what has been written, still proposing a situation that only restricts normal people who aren't look to perpetrate a crime but potentially protect themselves from it. Yet you've said nothing on anything I've pointed at which is factual, and instead gone to hypothetical that have been tried prior, shown to not work. During the assault weapon ban we still had Columbine happen, still had the Beltway Sniper happen still had other shooting events happen, during a time frame where such guns were impossible to buy and those that did exist were very expensive to get ammunition from. They were also capped on magazine size.

More importantly the bigger issue you ignore that I brought up and don't seem to take much issue with (because you've already decided you know what works best), is the fact people don't report these offenses to the FBI so when a background check is done these people get flagged. If local authorities aren't mandated to do such and only do it on their volition then of course a guy that shouldn't have a gun is going to "legally" obtain one. So imagine if the system in place was utilized as it should be?

The only case I can think of it in recent history where this wouldn't have worked because the person had no issues and actually before perpetrating said crime could have been looked at as law abiding was the Vegas Shooter.


In a sense, sure, because then you live in a system of mutually assured destruction.

On a more realistic note, I think other than your goal post moving and myopic outlook, my bigger issue with your view point is how tunnel visioned it is. Never once do you look at the bigger picture of this debate. You seem to be hooked by media where only mass shooting (a very tiny portion of the issue) seem to be an issue. Yet stats show that people die quite frequently by violent crimes in general. This isn't a mass shooting issue this is a people issue, and fixing that is key. If all you care about is the mass shootings, and not the various people who die state by state due to various forms of violence then all you want is to quell what the media has told you is a primary issue.

This is quite ironic considering since my opinion you are viewing the problem (mass shootings) with tunnel vision. Any solution that messes with the second amendment is wrong in your viewpoint. I have stated in my other posts that I acknowledge there is that other factors do count in these shootings. Mental Health, Proper background checks etc. There is no evidence that you have shown that reducing the amount of guns on a national level in the USA will not reduce mass shootings. I repeat again i do not disagree with the argument that mental healthcare and proper implementation of the state laws are part of the problem. But in my opinion the largest problem is the sheer amount of guns that is not the norm in the developed world. The columbine incident would not have happened if he had no acces to guns. They had acces to these guns because they are widely available (88 guns per 100 people)

I did give you an example of how in our country mental health patients do get good care. There however are still incidents werea disturbed person goes on a rampage and kidknaps people, rapes, murders etc. But virtually no mass shootings. I am confronted by our own news with mass shootings regulary and at least 90% of the time they are in the USA. I ask you to view the issue from the viewpoint as an outsider and not as a US citizen.

As has been pointed out many times in many ways, nobody should concern themselves specifically with gun deaths. I don't want to be murdered, I don't have a preference whether I'm not murdered by a gun, not murdered by a knife, not murdered by a truck, not murdered by a bomb, or not murdered by a 767. "Gun deaths" is meaningless. It really is. If you squash gun deaths but knife deaths rise by the same amount, you have accomplished nothing.

I understand what you are saying. But the danger from a fire weapon is much higher then a knife, bat or any other blunt weapon. Imagine yourself walking into public enclosured space with a knife or gun and you want to kill as many people as possible. With which weapon could you do more damage? And I stress this again, I also agree that the the act should be prevented in the first place and mental healthcare, law enforcement should all do their job better.

I already kind of do, since I'm from Houston. Not to mention I've also gone to events where open-carry was a thing, and not once was there ever a misfire, or someone getting hurt for that matter.

The topic wasnt misfires, but mass shootings.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-new...gunman-killed-by-police-773530179522?v=raila&

Because the second amendment is constitutional law, which is pretty important, similar to the other amendments in said constitution.

As for an agency, what would be the point of having gun sellers get an FFL if you're just going to have an agency do the job essentially and tell them when, who and what they can sell to a person. When the current system done correctly actually works? It's very confusing what you're not understanding about this. Also how would the seller check if the permit is legal and correct? It's akin to having a fake I.D. going to a liquor store and getting a 12 pack. "Well the minimum wage store clerk should check if the buyer was legal and correct"

A mental test isn't that difficult? Wow you haven't a clue, lucky for you I have a spouse who is actually in the medical field for some time now, has worked on unit with these type of patients and has seen a wide spectrum. But it's so difficult to tell a normal person from that of a schizophrenic on their medication. Glad we have you here to clear that up gee this whole gun/mental health debate is so cut and dry, how has it not been solved. /s

A physical isn't going to help test competency so not sure why you've brought that up. I've seen 300 pound men shoot grouping better than 180 pound fit police officers during shooting competitions.



Many guns today are still single action, varying action, double and single action, double action only, bolt, lever and on and on. There were plenty of people during the founding that were working on advancements. The founders knew about them and even saw some of these advancements come through as weapon technology grew with each battle at the end of the revolution and after. There was plenty of history they were well aware of that showed advancements from bow and arrow to gun power and guns and artillery, there were even rudimentary forms of rockets and explosives. Yet this argument where people think the founders were encapsulated in a moment of time and thought that said moment would always permeate through future history is a disservice to the actual conversation. Also to the SCOTUS who actually uses many documents beyond the Constitution to formulate their decisions. The Founders had many writings while constructing the constitution that gave way to the particular wording of said document. They didn't just decide to say "Right to bear arms...etc."

If you're going to be willing to have a debate/conversation and try to tackle the history of something unknown to you, then be prepared to look silly when you get it wrong.

Also it is a human right to protect yourself this goes all the way back to Hobbes and Locke. There is a distinct difference in killing someone and defending oneself, no one here is advocating killing and to misinterpret something like that because you're upset about the current situation of things doesn't help foster a conversation of growth.



What actions? Haphazardly restricting any person who has any mental instability from owning something to protect themselves with? Throwing more laws and restrictions at a system not being utilized correctly in the first place that could stop these people from owning guns? Following [insert country's] model in regards to this situation, because you think that it's a black and white, quick fix situation? These are all things you've said, and you've clearly misunderstood my post.

Again for the final time. The situation isn't that simple, so either you ban all people from owning weapons and hope nothing bad happens, or you actually try to navigate the extensive difficulties of what I just explained and hope that system you create afterward works to best capacity.

Obviously you wont be buying guns at a liquorstore. Only at select and highly regulated gunstores. Buying guns should be a lot more difficult then liquor. I compare it with purchasing weapons in other developed countries.

I do know a lot about guns. I misspoke and said singel action which was not around at the time. At the time they only had guns with a firerate 3 rounds per minute and, wildly inaccurate and an effective accuracy range of 50 meters. I am a fan of 19th century cap and ball single action revolvers. (I dont own any).

edit: added additional respons to @LMSCorvetteGT2

 

[Danoff]

I understand what you are saying. But the danger from a fire weapon is much higher then a knife, bat or any other blunt weapon. Imagine yourself walking into public enclosured space with a knife or gun and you want to kill as many people as possible. With which weapon could you do more damage?

To be honest, it totally depends on whether I want to get away with it. Random stabbings are much more difficult to catch than a mass shooting. You need to be suicidal or ready for life in prison before you go blasting up a room full of people - because you will be caught.

So I think that your question was really - if you were suicidal, and you want to kill as many people as possible, and you don't have access to a bomb or a plane, but you do have access to guns, would you choose a gun? And the answer is probably yes.

But you're taking a very small fraction of homicides (mass killing), and extrapolating from that the gun deaths (across all homicides) will be the right statistic to legislate against in order to prevent it. It's not. "Gun deaths" are still irrelevant. The statistics you should be pulling are "mass killings". In particular, what you want to show (given your strange focus on this particular type of crime), is that gun legislation will have a significant effect on the "mass killing" statistics.

So once again, stop focusing on "gun deaths". It's lazy statistics.

 

[PocketZeven]

To be honest, it totally depends on whether I want to get away with it. Random stabbings are much more difficult to catch than a mass shooting. You need to be suicidal or ready for life in prison before you go blasting up a room full of people - because you will be caught.

So I think that your question was really - if you were suicidal, and you want to kill as many people as possible, and you don't have access to a bomb or a plane, but you do have access to guns, would you choose a gun? And the answer is probably yes.

But you're taking a very small fraction of homicides (mass killing), and extrapolating from that the gun deaths (across all homicides) will be the right statistic to legislate against in order to prevent it. It's not. "Gun deaths" are still irrelevant. The statistics you should be pulling are "mass killings". In particular, what you want to show (given your strange focus on this particular type of crime), is that gun legislation will have a significant effect on the "mass killing" statistics.

So once again, stop focusing on "gun deaths". It's lazy statistics.

You are correct. gunhomicides or deaths are more reflective of overal crime and the effectiveness of law enforcement. However Mass shootings like the one in this thread, Sandy hook, columbine etc. in my opinion is a combination of gun control, mental healthcare and law enforcement.
I am focusing on specifically mass shootings. I try to not use gun deaths or fire-arm related deaths, because in that department the USA is not even the worst (south american countries are much worse), but they are the easiest to find. But on mass shootings the USA are ranked nr.1.

Per 100,000 rate is a bit off here though, because of the low population of the smaller countries.

edit: added extra graph

 

[Danoff]

I am focusing on specifically mass shootings.

Why?

per 100,000 rate is a bit off here though, because of the low population of the smaller countries.

Population normalization is very important in statistics.

 

[PocketZeven]

Why?



Population normalization is very important in statistics.

Because this thread is about a mass shooting.

I agree but in this case the actual number is 1 or 2 in 14 years. So the normalization doesnt paint an accurate picture. As if it is more probable there to have a mass shooting in finland or norway compared to the USA.

Edit: added comment

 

[Danoff]

Because this thread is about a mass shooting.

Ok...

Why are we talking about legislation directed specifically to mass shootings in response to a situation where two people were murdered?

 

[PocketZeven]

Ok...

Why are we talking about legislation directed specifically to mass shootings in response to a situation where two people were murdered?

Because the OP used it in the threadname.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

This is quite ironic considering since my opinion you are viewing the problem (mass shootings) with tunnel vision. Any solution that messes with the second amendment is wrong in your viewpoint.

Not irony, just you analyzing it and coming up with your own assumption rather than reading and understanding what is being said. No where do I say that any solution that messes with the second amendment is wrong nor hint at that. If I had I would say to arm more people, and to allow any weapons to be purchased without stringent check and limitation. All I've said it fix the system in place so it works and thus limits those "legal" purchases that shouldn't happen from happening.

I have stated in my other posts that I acknowledge there is that other factors do count in these shootings. Mental Health, Proper background checks etc. There is no evidence that you have shown that reducing the amount of guns on a national level in the USA will not reduce mass shootings. I repeat again i do not disagree with the argument that mental healthcare and proper implementation of the state laws are part of the problem. But in my opinion the largest problem is the sheer amount of guns that is not the norm in the developed world. The columbine incident would not have happened if he had no acces to guns. They had acces to these guns because they are widely available (88 guns per 100 people)

I actually did give evidence, go back and read my posts. We've had weapons bans and various incidents still have occurred during that time frame with banned weapons or stolen weapons despite laws in place.

Also I find it strange you claim the norm is your experience yet who dictates this "norm", just because certain developed nations think that is the best course for them doesn't mean it's the norm. There are other nations just as developed and even more so in certain areas with many of their citizens with guns.

I did give you an example of how in our country mental health patients do get good care. There however are still incidents werea disturbed person goes on a rampage and kidknaps people, rapes, murders etc. But virtually no mass shootings. I am confronted by our own news with mass shootings regulary and at least 90% of the time they are in the USA. I ask you to view the issue from the viewpoint as an outsider and not as a US citizen.

As there will always be, since the world isn't a perfect bubble where bad things wont happen because people wish it. I've already viewed it and thought about it from the outsider view. The conclusion is always the same and usually proven as you've done. Not educated enough to understand the laws, on mental health and ownership of firearms. And typically thinking it is a cut and dry, copy and paste solution from whatever country to the U.S. and everything gets fixed. Many time the cultural aspect is ignored.

Obviously you wont be buying guns at a liquorstore. Only at select and highly regulated gunstores. Buying guns should be a lot more difficult then liquor. I compare it with purchasing weapons in other developed countries.

Those exist, FFL dealers are highly regulated and have to be licensed (hence the L) to sell firearms to the public in the first place. Buying guns is a lot more difficult than liquor. I take alcohol to a counter pay for it and move on, very rarely do I get checked for an ID and even when I do it's a quick 30 second transaction. When I go to buy a gun, I have to show documentation, wait for an FBI background check, depending on the state have a wait period, only can buy a certain amount at one time and so forth. If I want to purchase certain items or certain weapons I have to actually go through even more invasive checks, pay a tax and then keep up to date with that item, along with it being registered with the government. Again my issue with you on this topic is you're not a legitimate proponent to protect people, if you were you'd educate yourself and analyze the issues in depth. Rather you've seen the topic come up one too many times, and want to sound off without any research.

I do know a lot about guns. I misspoke and said singel action which was not around at the time. At the time they only had guns with a firerate 3 rounds per minute and, wildly inaccurate and an effective accuracy range of 50 meters. I am a fan of 19th century cap and ball single action revolvers. (I dont own any).

You didn't research, typically when a person misspeak it tends to mean they spoke out of term or incorrectly by mistake but aren't ignorant to the subject.