Mass shooting at Madden tournament in Jacksonville

[TetsuKobura]

No one is blaming the NRA. They are being shamed for their agenda and actively working against and dismantling proposed and existing gun control laws.

Like i stated multiple times. Law enforcement is only part of the problem. The wide availability of guns is also a part of the problem. I am acknowledging you, but you are ignoring me. I repeat 88 guns per 100 people is not normal.

Ignoring you? Now that's funny.

Except what you said about the NRA isn't entirely true, since they advocated for the banning of items like the bump-fire stock, used in the Vegas Shooting, while groups like Gun Owners of America were against such measures. Not to mention I just posted about the national database, which GOA also doesn't advocate for as far as I'm aware, yet because it's the NRA, and the media puts all of their coverage on people like David Hogg, instead of others like Kyle Kashuv and Cameron Kasky (even though Kasky had far more coverage), they are put out to be the absolute devil.

Having a collection of guns doesn't mean anything at all. I have a couple of rifles, handguns, and a pump-action shotgun, all locked away in a vault, and I don't even have access to the vault, because my dad is the only one with a key to open it. These guns during my entire lifetime will not kill 10s of hundreds of people, yet illegally obtained firearms will commit a majority of crimes around the US on a yearly basis, yet you want to go after those with a mass amount of weapons.

One final point to note is that the people turning in all of their firearms or destroying their firearms in an attempt to stop mass shootings do zero to prevent them, because, like I've said before, criminals don't care about gun laws, or the laws put in place to prevent these shootings, are not being enforced.

 

[Danoff]

There were 67 homicides in jacksonville in 2017. It has been 11 days since the start of this thread. So on average, 2 more people have been murdered in Jacksonville since this thread was posted. I just want to point out that nobody cares because they weren't probably both murdered by a gun in the same spot.

 

[PocketZeven]

Ignoring you? Now that's funny.

Except what you said about the NRA isn't entirely true, since they advocated for the banning of items like the bump-fire stock, used in the Vegas Shooting, while groups like Gun Owners of America were against such measures. Not to mention I just posted about the national database, which GOA also doesn't advocate for as far as I'm aware, yet because it's the NRA, and the media puts all of their coverage on people like David Hogg, instead of others like Kyle Kashuv and Cameron Kasky (even though Kasky had far more coverage), they are put out to be the absolute devil.

Having a collection of guns doesn't mean anything at all. I have a couple of rifles, handguns, and a pump-action shotgun, all locked away in a vault, and I don't even have access to the vault, because my dad is the only one with a key to open it. These guns during my entire lifetime will not kill 10s of hundreds of people, yet illegally obtained firearms will commit a majority of crimes around the US on a yearly basis, yet you want to go after those with a mass amount of weapons.

One final point to note is that the people turning in all of their firearms or destroying their firearms in an attempt to stop mass shootings do zero to prevent them, because, like I've said before, criminals don't care about gun laws, or the laws put in place to prevent these shootings, are not being enforced.

I didnt entirely worded that correctly. I meant you were ignoring my proposition of reducing (not banning) the amount of guns.

I also condemn any other lobbying group by the way. Politics should not be influenced by money in that way.

Can you provide proof for that claim? I have already posted numerous statistics that already disprove that assumption. You are partly right about criminals not caring about gun laws, but mass shooters do. Career criminals always have a way to obtain illegal guns. Non career criminals have less possibilities.

edit: added additional comment

 

[ryzno]

I repeat 88 guns per 100 people is not normal.

It's normal here... Who are you to say what should be normal in a country you seem to know nothing about? And mass shooters don't care about gun laws. They can just as easily get access to a gun as me and guess what? I'm not supposed to own one... I give up with you.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's normal here... And mass shooters don't care about gun laws. I give up with you.

That is the point. Mass shootings are also being normalized. Please realize there is corrolation between the two. Among developed countries this high volume of gun is far from normal.

edit: added graphs

 

[Danoff]

That is the point. Mass shootings are also being normalized. Please realize there is corrolation between the two and that among developed countries this is not normal at all.

You kinda shifted goal posts (without answering my question). Normal was directed to the number of guns per citizen. I have 6, what would a normal number be?

Edit:

88 guns per 100 people. Of the 100 people that I'm a member of, I own 6. To get up to 88, there needs to be 14 more people like me in the 100 people group. That means that if I'm "normal" in this country for a gun owner, there are 15 gun owners in the group of 100.

Edit 2:

Apparently in 2013 the average number of guns owned by a gun owner is 8 (in the US). So I'm a little short. That means that in that group of 100, there is an average of 11 gun owners. 11% of the population.

 

[PocketZeven]

You kinda shifted goal posts (without answering my question). Normal was directed to the number of guns per citizen. I have 6, what would a normal number be?

See the average for developed countries. Maybe you shoot guns recreatively and adhere to every gun law,, but are they neccesary? If you can get a permit and have those weapons registered (maybe they already are), properly stored (which you have) there shouldnt be a reason to not keep them. But on the flipside, because of the wide availability it is easier to find, purchase or steal a gun then anywhere else in the world. The issue is not how many guns you personally own, but how widely available and easy it is to obtain and how many guns get/are in the wrong hands, compared to other countries.

edit: corrected sentence.

 

[Danoff]

See the average for developed countries. Maybe you shoot guns recreatively and adhere to every gun law, then you may definately keep your guns, but are they neccesary? If you can get a permit and have those weapons registered (maybe they already are), properly stored (which you have) there shouldnt be a reason to keep them. But on the flipside, because of the wide availability it is easier to find, purchase or steal a gun then anywhere else in the world. The issue is not how many guns you personally own, but how widely available and easy it is to obtain and how many guns are in the wrong hands, compared to other countries.

I understand your point, and I hear it. Can you answer why you don't seem to care about the 2 people on average in jacksonville that were murdered after the 2 people we're still talking about? It's not a "mass shooting" so it doesn't make your radar screen?

Almost all of my guns have serial numbers (except the one that predates serial numbers) and are in compliance with the law. They're stored in a keypad operated gun safe in my home. I don't shoot them recreationally, I don't particularly like shooting guns. I have them because some of them are valuable antiques, and some of them are for home defense. I consider it to be responsible for adults to know how to operate and handle guns and to have them stored securely in their home for self-defense, especially if they have children (I can almost hear someone getting triggered in response to this sentence).

Widely available/easily obtained is not the same thing as there being a large number of them in the country (which are the statistics you're posting). That's because people that have guns tend to have more than 1 (8 apparently). So there is a large number, but they are concentrated. Citing statistics about how many there are is fairly irrelevant to your point.

Your point is that they're too easy to get, and I tend to agree with you *bombshell*. Actually that point has been generally agreed with in most of these discussions.

 

[PocketZeven]

I understand your point, and I hear it. Can you answer why you don't seem to care about the 2 people on average in jacksonville that were murdered after the 2 people we're still talking about? It's not a "mass shooting" so it doesn't make your radar screen?

Almost all of my guns have serial numbers (except the one that predates serial numbers) and are in compliance with the law. They're stored in a keypad operated gun safe in my home. I don't shoot them recreationally, I don't particularly like shooting guns. I have them because some of them are valuable antiques, and some of them are for home defense. I consider it to be responsible for adults to know how to operate and handle guns and to have them stored securely in their home for self-defense, especially if they have children (I can almost hear someone getting triggered in response to this sentence).


Edit: As I am writing this there is a mass shooting in cincinatti https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/09/06/cincinnati-shooting-incident-downtown-vpx.cnn

Widely available/easily obtained is not the same thing as there being a large number of them in the country (which are the statistics you're posting). That's because people that have guns tend to have more than 1 (8 apparently). So there is a large number, but they are concentrated. Citing statistics about how many there are is fairly irrelevant to your point.

Your point is that they're too easy to get, and I tend to agree with you *bombshell*. Actually that point has been generally agreed with in most of these discussions.

Its not I dont care. I live in a country with a different news cycle and I am posting in this thread about a mass shooting. Of which I agree isnt entirely correct. Apparantly a mass shooting needs to have 4 random vistims to be classified as such.

Personally I would like to collect some classic revolvers or replicas and occasionally shoot them recreationally, but it is too difficult and costly to get that done. I also have 2 small children and therefore not comfortable to have guns in my appartment, even if they are locked away.

To be accurate you then also have to apply the statistic to the other countries as well (cant find the global average of amount of guns owned). Which greatly reduces the gunownership in other countries as well and therefor still shows the corollation between mass shootings and gunownership. I found this more relevant graph of households gunownership.

https://www.axios.com/the-percentag...943-490b2051-3056-4020-ac55-0d091641d80f.html

I understand the difference between availability and ,amount of guns owned, but one is a result of another. I think we are much more in line of the same thought then we realised. The only real disagreement we have is on the status of the 2nd amendement (a basic human right vs a dated concept that should be changed to modern times)

Edit: today a new shooting in Cincinatti

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/09/06/cincinnati-shooting-incident-downtown-vpx.cnn

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/0...ilding-in-downtown-cincinnati-police-say.html

 

[Danoff]

Edit: today a new shooting in Cincinatti

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/09/06/cincinnati-shooting-incident-downtown-vpx.cnn

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/0...ilding-in-downtown-cincinnati-police-say.html

Cincinatti has a similar homicide rate to Jacksonville. 71 homicides in 2015. That incident resulted in 3 people shot. Cincinnati sees 3 people murdered every 15-16 days. I'm not trying to belittle the lives of those who were killed. I'm trying to put into context that you can post that about 3 people in that city twice a month.

 

[PocketZeven]

Cincinatti has a similar homicide rate to Jacksonville. 71 homicides in 2015. That incident resulted in 3 people shot. Cincinnati sees 3 people murdered every 15-16 days. I'm not trying to belittle the lives of those who were killed. I'm trying to put into context that you can post that about 3 people in that city twice a month.

Doing some simple research will conclude that shootings like these are very unique to the USA. Since it wasnt a robbery, terrorist attack or assasination, but a random shooting of innocents. This doesnt happen as often in other parts of the world.

 

[ryzno]

Doing some simple research will conclude that shootings like these are very unique to the USA. Since it wasnt a robbery, terrorist attack or assasination, but a random shooting of innocents. This doesnt happen as often in other parts of the world.

You don't even know why he decided to shoot up a loading dock. The media doesn't either so we can't really classify the shooting yet. Why do you care so much about our problems?
Edit: If your country was like ours it wouldn't be so difficult or expensive to get the vintage pistols you mentioned wanting to shoot.

 

[TexRex]

Seems like something that could be addressed by the person who wants to know.

I addressed it. If you're of the belief that my addressing it was inappropriate, I suggest you present that to the forum staff.

Why was the number of knife crimes presented anyway? The only time a knife was used in this incident was in that counterfactual wherein the assailant had one and his victims had guns.

 

[ryzno]

The only time a knife was used in this incident was in that counterfactual wherein the assailant had one and his victims had guns.

Wrong, he said they were stabbed... He said it could've been worse if the stabber had a gun. I said what if the victims had a gun.
So using your logic I answered a "counterfactual" with a "counterfactual" that only you seem concerned about.
Keep trying...

 

[PocketZeven]

You don't even know why he decided to shoot up a loading dock. The media doesn't either so we can't really classify the shooting yet. Why do you care so much about our problems?
Edit: If your country was like ours it wouldn't be so difficult or expensive to get the vintage pistols you mentioned wanting to shoot.

Some articles already said the shooting was random. Why do I care? I have 2 small children and it pains me to see parents having to bury their own child... I am almost tearing up writing this. I however am not a US citizen and perhaps I can influence somebody by voicing my opinion.

You missed the point. I gladly sacrifice the experience of shooting and owning a classic revolver so my kids dont need to walk in a school with armed guards or even teachers (what deVoss has openly supported).

 

[Exorcet]

Why do you care so much about our problems?

I don't think it's odd at all to be concerned about people who are not in your immediate vicinity. I don't put much stock in the concept of "our problems" anyway. There are varying positions both inside and outside the US and varying levels of awareness and knowledge (being in the US doesn't make you more knowledgeable on the US by default). All of these positions are equally valid as long as they're rational. When any opinion is posted here, where the person making the comment comes from shouldn't matter at all.

 

[PocketZeven]

Wrong, he said they were stabbed... He said it could've been worse if the stabber had a gun. I said what if the victims had a gun.
So using your logic I answered a "counterfactual" with a "counterfactual" that only you seem concerned about.
Keep trying...

I commented earlier that hypothetically if the victims where allowed to carry a gun, most likely the assailant would have had a gun. Then probably the assailant would probably already killed the 2 victims before they even had the chance to grab their weapon.

The assailant was shot by dutch police. (Police in the Netherlands are trained to shoot the legs first) Both the victims and assailant are heavily wounded, but still alive.

 

[ryzno]

Some articles already said the shooting was random. Why do I care? I have 2 small children and it pains me to see parents having to bury their own child... I am almost tearing up writing this. I however am not a US citizen and perhaps I can influence somebody by voicing my opinion.

You missed the point. I gladly sacrifice the experience of shooting and owning a classic revolver so my kids dont need to walk in a school with armed guards or even teachers (what deVoss has openly supported).

Fair enough, I can accept that. But didn't you say you could buy it, but it would be difficult and expensive? So that means guns aren't illegal in your country, just difficult to acquire right?

 

[PocketZeven]

Fair enough, I can accept that. But didn't you say you could buy it, but it would be difficult and expensive? So that means guns aren't illegal in your country, just difficult to acquire right?

Guns are illegal, but you can own guns with a permit for just 2 reason: sports target shooting and hunting. Self-defence is not a valid reason to own a gun in the Netherlands.

I need to be a member of a accredited gunclub for at least a year before i can apply for a permit and buy a gun. Even then I am only allowed to own a gun that is specific to the club you join. For hunters you need to do a 1 year extensive and expensive hunting course and get a diploma and apply for a license. For each they do extensive background checks. Also, gun owners can only legally transport their guns and/or ammunition either from their home to their gun club, to a licensed gunsmith, to the police station (for inspection) or to a shooting match they hold an invitation to. All of the above via the shortest possible route. There are a lot more requirements you need to meet. But you see it is quite a hassle.

edit: added content

 

[Danoff]

Some articles already said the shooting was random. Why do I care? I have 2 small children and it pains me to see parents having to bury their own child... I am almost tearing up writing this. I however am not a US citizen and perhaps I can influence somebody by voicing my opinion.

...but not if that child is a victim of an individual crime? Only if that child is killed in conjunction with others in a mass event? I know that's not what you mean, I'm trying to get you to understand the degree to which this is purely sensationalist news. It's not that there is no problem, it's that the problem is much much larger than mass shootings.

You missed the point. I gladly sacrifice the experience of shooting and owning a classic revolver so my kids dont need to walk in a school with armed guards or even teachers (what deVoss has openly supported).

This is the ultimate false dichotomy presented by almost every anti-gun argument I've ever seen. That someone who lawfully and responsibly owns a gun must give it up in order to safeguard victims. My 6 guns have never once been involved in a mass shooting, and there is no danger of that happening. Removing them does nothing to help anyone.

I addressed it. If you're of the belief that my addressing it was inappropriate, I suggest you present that to the forum staff.

Why was the number of knife crimes presented anyway? The only time a knife was used in this incident was in that counterfactual wherein the assailant had one and his victims had guns.

You addressed it after my comment. I'm merely pointing out that it wasn't the responsibility of a random person to satisfy the curiosity of another member.

Also, I didn't suggest that it was inappropriate or worthy of a staff member's review. Not sure why you think it might have been.

 

[PocketZeven]

...but not if that child is a victim of an individual crime? Only if that child is killed in conjunction with others in a mass event? I know that's not what you mean, I'm trying to get you to understand the degree to which this is purely sensationalist news. It's not that there is no problem, it's that the problem is much much larger than mass shootings.



This is the ultimate false dichotomy presented by almost every anti-gun argument I've ever seen. That someone who lawfully and responsibly owns a gun must give it up in order to safeguard victims. My 6 guns have never once been involved in a mass shooting, and there is no danger of that happening. Removing them does nothing to help anyone.



You addressed it after my comment. I'm merely pointing out that it wasn't the responsibility of a random person to satisfy the curiosity of another member.

Also, I didn't suggest that it was inappropriate or worthy of a staff member's review. Not sure why you think it might have been.

Ofcourse I care about other children. But I am specifically posting in a thread about mass shooting and it is a uniquely american problem. And it isnt sensationalist news... It doesnt happen in the same frequency as in other developed countries. And those countries also have problems with crime, just not mass shootings.

But owning or not owning them dont make a difference to you as well. It is for the greater good. There was a large opposition, with the same chain of thought as you, in australia when they banned guns as well. But in the end it is a safer country because of it.

But I very much respect your position. In your country it is still a right to own a gun. In my country it is a privilege for a civilian you must earn by earning a permit, through extensive training and background checks. As long as the second amendment is there I have no grounding to convince you otherwise.

 

[Danoff]

Ofcourse I care about other children. But I am specifically posting in a thread about mass shooting and it is a uniquely american problem. And it isnt sensationalist news... It doesnt happen in the same frequency as in other developed countries. And those countries also have problems with crime, just not mass shootings.

No, mass shootings are not a uniquely american problem. And I've been trying to get you to think more broadly, about mass killings which are very much not a uniquely american problem. The unique thing about America seems to be frequency, which is the case across violent crime in general - not gun specific.

But owning or not owning them dont make a difference to you as well.

It does, it's my personal defense.

It is for the greater good. There was a large opposition, with the same chain of thought as you, in australia when they banned guns as well. But in the end it is a safer country because of it.

It hasn't stopped mass killings there. My guns do not need to be taken from me for the greater good, it does nobody any good. There is no greater good by doing it. Zero people are helped by me giving up my guns because they are not harming anyone and are not a risk of harming anyone.

But I very much respect your position. In your country it is still a right to own a gun. In my country it is a privilege for a civilian you must earn by earning a permit, through extensive training and background checks. As long as the second amendment is there I have no grounding to convince you otherwise.

I don't think that the second amendment actually precludes requiring permits.

 

[PocketZeven]

No, mass shootings are not a uniquely american problem. And I've been trying to get you to think more broadly, about mass killings which are very much not a uniquely american problem. The unique thing about America seems to be frequency, which is the case across violent crime in general - not gun specific.



It does, it's my personal defense.



It hasn't stopped mass killings there. My guns do not need to be taken from me for the greater good, it does nobody any good. There is no greater good by doing it. Zero people are helped by me giving up my guns because they are not harming anyone and are not a risk of harming anyone.



I don't think that the second amendment actually precludes requiring permits.

I will rephrase: the frequency of mass shootings is a uniquely american problem. I am not going to disagree with your own situation. I am going to specify my view from now on as reducing the availability of guns to the general public and changing the second amendment so gun ownership is a privilege and not a right.

It did greatly reduce the probability of a mass shooting happening. Like I said it is almost impossible to reduce any crime by 100%.

 

[Danoff]

It did greatly reduce the probability of a mass shooting happening.

Mass shooting is meaningless. Homicide is what matters. If you're going to focus on mass events, focus on mass killings, not shootings.

 

[PocketZeven]

Mass shooting is meaningless. Homicide is what matters. If you're going to focus on mass events, focus on mass killings, not shootings.

Read the thread.

 

[Danoff]

Read the thread.

You mean the title? Why are you talking about non-Madden related killings then? If we're focusing on aspects of this event that don't distinguish it from other events, let's talk about events that occur only in Jacksonville at Madden tournaments. That's probably a uniquely American problem. If we ban madden tournaments we could eliminate all madden tournament related killing.

 

[ryzno]

Guns are illegal, but you can own guns with a permit for just 2 reason: sports target shooting and hunting. Self-defence is not a valid reason to own a gun in the Netherlands.

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

 

[McLaren]

My apologies, I wasnt clear. I meant ownership through the means I proposed and not under current law. Meaning ownership through permits and strict registration of guns. I found this interesting bit about the difference between how this works in Switzerland, which also has an abnormal high gun per capita ratio (46 per 100):

"Another important difference is that in Switzerland the onus of getting permission to possess a firearm is on the buyer, not the sellerexternal link. A buyer in Switzerland needs to get a permit-to-purchase issued by the cantonal police (specific weapons for hunting or sports are exempt). Permits are denied to applicants with criminal records, addiction problems, or a debilitating psychiatric condition. This system is based on direct access to criminal records through local law enforcement, and is both more thorough and less burdensome than the current US system, which suffers from widely acknowledged loopholes and information inaccuraciesexternal link. A Scientific American article noted that the ten US states that do require a permit-to-purchase have seen a proven reduction in gun violenceexternal link."

Yes, you said this before; stricter gun laws to which again, you said a criminal would be forced to steal a weapon to commit a crime.

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.

That is already how a majority of gun-related crime works including mass shootings; I've showed you this at least twice now. When I told you the punishment for stealing the gun, you said they don't care.

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 don't care about laws in place, I ask you again, what makes you think your guideline will be respected? All your guideline will do is slow down the amount of legal gun owners who don't commit crimes.

See the problem with this circle you keep running is that you've already explained yourself why your rules won't work.

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

There are 265 million weapons in this country & that's likely a conservative figure that accounts for known weapons. I've seen sources claim up to 400 million that say they take illegal firearms into their figure. Sticking with the original figure, that's how crimes are going to be continued to be committed; through stealing & straw-purchasing.

Your only major action is to make an effort to try and start limiting the guns that are out there right now. (You were actually asked before as well.)

And what about all the guns that are already out there?

That's the trick question. How do you do it? You can't confiscate a weapon that was already legally purchased. You can try and force authorized home entries to see if weapons are locked up per your rules, but you're going to run into a lot of red tape there requiring warrants. And there will be a huge backlash from the public about authorized police coming into your home when you've done nothing wrong.

I'll stand behind stricter background checks, but much of you propose is already done or circumvented by criminals.

With 37,000+ knives used in crimes in the latest year of recorded statistics, I'd say knives are something to worry about over there.

I think an issue is how much control are they willing to let their authority have. I shared a tweet in another thread a few months back where 1 police force confiscated a set of carpentry tools....

Jesus wept.

 

[TexRex]

You addressed it after my comment. I'm merely pointing out that it wasn't the responsibility of a random person to satisfy the curiosity of another member.

Also, I didn't suggest that it was inappropriate or worthy of a staff member's review. Not sure why you think it might have been.

You made a number of comments within four posts between the post that I addressed and my post addressing it, and in none of those four posts did you answer the question that was asked (and I answered) nor did you address the non-answer that I addressed.

Was it my responsibility to answer the question or address the non-answer? No, I'll give you that. But is there anything to suggest that I didn't have right to answer/address in absence of responsibility? Your continued remarks regarding my having responded sure seem to suggest you believe there is.

Beyond that, let's look at the post in question objectively (because I know you have a thing for objectivism); my post was merely a third party addressing comments made by a second party directed to the first party, followed up with an edit answering a question posed by the first party to the second party.

This thread is full of third parties addressing comments from second parties directed at first parties, and it appears as though the one in which I was the third party is the first that you were compelled to comment on.

 

[Dennisch]

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

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

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