Shooting at Jacksonville Madden tournament

[Darwin333]

Because sitting on your arse playing games is not a sport.

Call it whatever you want but it is a career for some and a damn good one at that.

 

[Darwin333]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK5TQSKmS3o
I personally consider this the ultimate sport. Forget a triathalon.

LOL that is awesome.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

To bad they didn't list political party or NRA membership

I'd be willing to bet that the rate of gun murder committed by NRA members is extremely low.

Kind of like how the gun murder rate among concealed weapon permit holders is unbelievably low. I don't know of any data on NRA members, but I remember reading an article about CW holders and the numbers were very low despite the fact that the article intentionally inflated the numbers by counting people who weren't convicted yet (trial/investigation pending), and by counting ALL murders even those not committed using guns.

We could use better data on this kind of stuff.

 

[Josephus312]

Well I don't know if it was too many doors, too few guns or too much videogames but surely, absolutely, undeniably it had nothing to do with it being easy for this troubled mental case to have access to guns.

That's just unpossible and an uncoherently phrased inargument that only Communist lefties would ever make.

What is needed is LESS control of gun owners, less restrictions and perhaps tax relief to those who own guns! That is surely the way to go.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Long history of mental health issues. Still able to purchase the gun legally.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/us/j...8T17:00:06&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twCNN

 

[dainthomas]

Long history of mental health issues. Still able to purchase the gun legally.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/us/jacksonville-madden-shooter-katz-mental-health-invs/index.html?utm_term=link&utm_content=2018-08-28T17:00:06&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twCNN

How dare you attempt to infringe the rights of the well regulated militia.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

How dare you attempt to infringe the rights of the well regulated militia.

You mean well medicated right?

 

[Paladin3]

This subject warrants serious discussion, but i'm not sure this is the place for it with all the non-sense slogans being hurled around.

That said, in all seriousness, how much do we value due process under the law? Are we ready to accept depriving an individual of their constitutional rights when they haven't broken the law, because that's what we would have had to do to stop this guy before he killed. What other constitutional rights are we ready to suspend without due process? Who will make that decision on who's competent for which rights?

David Katz was a danger to himself and others, mentally troubled and antisocial from what I've read, but no court or judge ever ruled so to legally suspend his right to own a gun. I wish he hadn't been able to buy those two pistols, but I'm not sure how to stop someone who hasn't broken the law or had that constitutional right suspended.

How many other individuals in society aren't stable enough to handle the responsibility of gun ownership, voting, having a child, driving a car, or publishing their thoughts for mass consumption? How do we identify them, prove it and get their rights suspended before they commit a crime? We have legal procedures in place for doing so, but not before something has already gone wrong or a crime has been committed.

Or just vote to get rid of the 2A.

 

[zinfamous]

In large part yes. Why is that shocking to you? Its an agency of the U.N. and is not made up of only medical professionals.

We have a couple of WHO manuals for general protocols that we use in the lab. lol--I fucking promise you that these aren't "politicians" making medical decisions and recommendations.

Dude, like any institution, you have the professionals that perform the mission of the department, and the support staff and administrative offices that are in place to facilitate the work.

I guess hospitals and major research institutions are just a bunch of "bureaucrats" because administrative staff work there too!

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Long history of mental health issues. Still able to purchase the gun legally.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/us/jacksonville-madden-shooter-katz-mental-health-invs/index.html?utm_term=link&utm_content=2018-08-28T17:00:06&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twCNN

Man that argument still blows my mind. I really don't care if someone has a gun as long as their medical and background checks out. I don't know why so many are against that.

 

[Josephus312]

Long history of mental health issues. Still able to purchase the gun legally.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/us/jacksonville-madden-shooter-katz-mental-health-invs/index.html?utm_term=link&utm_content=2018-08-28T17:00:06&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twCNN

Well you see the problem is either too many doors or too few guns. Mental health has nothing to do with it.

 

[Josephus312]

Man that argument still blows my mind. I really don't care if someone has a gun as long as their medical and background checks out. I don't know why so many are against that.

Yeah well the problem is that everyone is a responsible, sane gun owner until they aren't.

But nah, that's not a problem, it's the doors, too many of them and too few guns.

Obviously armed guards at every venue and in every situation is needed as well as way fewer doors.

Can't restrict firearm ownership, that would be unconstitutional, are you a Communist or something?

 

[Fern]

Man that argument still blows my mind. I really don't care if someone has a gun as long as their medical and background checks out. I don't know why so many are against that.

People aren't against it.

And we already have background checks. It's just that it's dysfunctional. In some cases there were mistakes made. E.g., the Aurora Co. shooting. But IMO the problem is mostly that the states themselves do a poor job or have insufficient requirements/laws for reporting mental health problems. And constitutionally it has been ruled that federal gov cannot force states to enforce compliance with fed regulations. Given that court ruling I don't see how calls for more background checks can do anything.

My only idea is for the federal gov to provide funding to states to encourage complying/assisting with reporting. You don't report, you don't get the federal money.

Fern

 

[realibrad]

We have a couple of WHO manuals for general protocols that we use in the lab. lol--I fucking promise you that these aren't "politicians" making medical decisions and recommendations.

Dude, like any institution, you have the professionals that perform the mission of the department, and the support staff and administrative offices that are in place to facilitate the work.

I guess hospitals and major research institutions are just a bunch of "bureaucrats" because administrative staff work there too!

Guy, even if the people are all doctors, they are not all the same type of doctors. Would you expect a doctor of oncology is qualified to say what is a psychological condition? Further, there is a reason that the APA did not want to include it as an addiction.

Also, your analogy of hospitals is also flawed. Hospitals do not define disorders. What happens is the medical community reviews research and or papers and goes from there. The problem here is that Gaming Addiction is really more of a symptom of other personality issues. Here are the three metrics that the WHO used to call this an addiction disorder. "the lack of control of playing video games, priority given to video games over other interests, and inability to stop playing video games even after being affected by negative consequences." You like a good joke, so tell me, if you were to apply this to women, what would you say.

Seriously, this is more of a political move than it is a medical move. We are getting closer and closer to saying that anything that people really enjoy beyond the average is a disorder.

 

[Alpha One Seven]

4 dead so far. Broadcast on twitch. Damn. Video below is from the stream, it just has the audio of it really. Still unreal

https://youtu.be/_1k4Xh79XQA




Edit: twitter of same vid if you don’t want YouTube https://mobile.twitter.com/ispoonz_/status/1033777083011526656?s=21

Isn't Unreal the game Epic made?

 

[Alpha One Seven]

Ban video games.

At least the tournaments that get people killed when tempers flare.

 

[Sunburn74]

We are getting closer and closer to saying that anything that people really enjoy beyond the average is a disorder.

Well, I'm not a psychiatrist but classically an addictive disorder usually has to establish continued behavior despite adverse significant social consequences of the behavior. Its not just a matter of enjoying the behavior (for example you can't be addicted to your wife if your relationship is completely normal. People just call that love. If you're tying up your wife and shooting at police, then there's a problem)

I do generally agree with you that addiction is very hard to define and in the past was only used in regards to substances that directly alter brain chemistry. Over time there has been creep to calling various fairly benign behaviors as addictive (cell phone use, TV watching, exercise, etc etc). My general suspicion is that there is a lot of overlap between addictive behavior and other psychiatric disease like depression, anxiety, various significant personality disorders, and obsessive compulsive disorder that blurs all the lines and really most of these people that we say are allegedly "addicted" to a behavior really have some other underlying or concomitant serious psychiatric illness.

I personally don't believe video game addiction is a true addiction, anymore than I don't believe TV addiction, cell phone addiction, or exercise addiction or etc are.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Or just vote to get rid of the 2A.

There are other paths. The current interpretation of the Second Amendment is not the only one that we have had. We could go back to making the 'Well regulated militia' part core to gun ownership again.

 

[Ns1]

I don't know why so many are against that.

All I heard was you want to take away my guns.

 

[Amused]

Sums it up:

 

[Josephus312]

People aren't against it.

Fern

No, PEOPLE aren't, the NRA are and they are the ones that set the policy with a little help from their Russian friends.

 

[Paladin3]

There are other paths. The current interpretation of the Second Amendment is not the only one that we have had. We could go back to making the 'Well regulated militia' part core to gun ownership again.

I don't remember a time in American history when we only allowed militia members to own guns. We can't organize everyone into the military, or even a quazi-military organization, so that would just deny the bulk of the citizenry the right to own a gun. And with a militia of citizens owning guns, do you really think that would solve our gun violence problem? How would you get guns away from criminals who refused to give them up?

It sounds like an easy solution, but many of the solution we come up with are to essentially build roadblocks and establishing tests one must pass in order to exercise their constitutional rights. So do we value due process under the law for individuals or not? Or do we just do away with the 2A?

Frankly, I'm getting tired of hearing unconstitutional solution presented as rational.

 

[ch33zw1z]

At least the tournaments that get people killed when tempers flare.

How very authoritarian of you.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I don't remember a time in American history when we only allowed militia members to own guns. We can't organize everyone into the military, or even a quazi-military organization, so that would just deny the bulk of the citizenry the right to own a gun. And with a militia of citizens owning guns, do you really think that would solve our gun violence problem? How would you get guns away from criminals who refused to give them up?

It sounds like an easy solution, but many of the solution we come up with are to essentially build roadblocks and establishing tests one must pass in order to exercise their constitutional rights. So do we value due process under the law for individuals or not? Or do we just do away with the 2A?

Frankly, I'm getting tired of hearing unconstitutional solution presented as rational.

Actually, I could see belonging to the state run militia a great motivator for gun ownership. It would have to be less stringent than full time fed military, but nonetheless part of gun ownership. I would certainly accept a state tax increase to fund it within reason. Maybe we can tackle our seditary lifestyle health problems and reduce overall healthcare costs simultaneously, while maintaining a responsible gun ownership program.

Just imagine how hard the oligarchy will fight against this also, people organizing to create state militias that could fight back against tyrannic federal overreach.

I'm certainly more tired of hearing about people with mental health issues accessing guns and murdering others over inane reasons.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I don't remember a time in American history when we only allowed militia members to own guns.

In 1939 the SCOTUS ruled in United States v. Miller that certain weapons (short barreled shotguns were the focus) did not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and therefor was not protected by the 2nd Amendment. That ruling is still in effect. This ruling represents the idea of gun ownership as a 'collective' right as opposed to the 'individual' right. The individual right has only recently been considered to be the correct interpretation only coming to prominence in 1986 with the passing of the Firearm Owners Protection Act, and every ruling by SCOTUS has held the collective right as the proper interpretation up until 2008.

We can't organize everyone into the military, or even a quazi-military organization, so that would just deny the bulk of the citizenry the right to own a gun.

That would be the point. It is entirely reasonable to decide that the constitution only allows the ownership of firearms in the context of a well regulated militia and it not a blanked right for anyone to own and bear guns at any time. We are already curtailing this supposed freedom on all sorts of grounds not spelled out in the Constitution, so why not curtail it on one specifically set out in the Constitution? This is the collective right argument.

And with a militia of citizens owning guns, do you really think that would solve our gun violence problem? How would you get guns away from criminals who refused to give them up?

Yes, only allowing the ownership and bearing of firearms in the context of a well regulated militia would go a long way to making sure that only people with a reasonable amount of training and oversight owns firearms. The idea that we could not get them from the hands of criminals is a stawman argument. How did England do it? Do you believe that English criminals are just so polite that they willingly turned over their guns when the UK banned them?

Ban the private sale and ownership of guns except under specific situations and the number of guns out there will start to diminish with time. The fact that we can't solve the entire problem in one fell swoop does not mean that we can't solve the problem at all. We work towards a solution with slow deliberation, and make corrections as needed.

It sounds like an easy solution, but many of the solution we come up with are to essentially build roadblocks and establishing tests one must pass in order to exercise their constitutional rights. So do we value due process under the law for individuals or not? Or do we just do away with the 2A?

Every solution is going to involve removing guns from people that we decide has no reason to have them. We have already agreed on that when we decided that some people should not have guns, and some guns almost no one should have. We are only really quibbling on who we should allow to have what guns. What is the real difference between removing a person's firearms because we find them to be mentally unfit and deciding that not being in the military makes one unfit? Both are subjective and mostly arbitrary judgments on who should be allowed to own a firearm.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of hearing unconstitutional solution presented as rational.

There is nothing unconstitutional about the solution I presented. It is in the 2nd amendment. It is just how we interpret it. What is the constitutional reason for now allowing free access to military grade weapons or nuclear weapons? It is the collective right that makes that possible. It is hard to imagine how not allowing heavy machine guns to be sold at the corner store fits in with the idea of it being an individual right that you seem to be promoting.