Shooting in Jacksonville Florida during a Madden 19 Tournament
 

a shooting took place at a Madden 19 Tournament in Jacksonville Florida today. 4 people are dead and about 11 are injured. The Shooter was a gamer who competed in this tournament and lost.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...15353108170010

Also the shooting happened during a live stream of the tournament. Link to the stream below. Beware its disturbing.
https://twitter.com/Ninkat_/status/1033778084166729728

...and he was allowed to bring a gun(s) into the tournament?!

also its Florida.

Explain, please. I'm not from your part of the world so what should I know about the Punk Frogs' home?

I have a feeling videogames will get blamed again...

Well the thing is the video game they were playing was Madden 19.

It was a disgruntled gamer who lost in the tournament. Probably snapped and shot up the place before killing himself.

ah, Florida Man strikes again.

Humanity... the strongest species the world has ever seen, to the point that it can take over the planet like the greatest plague it will ever know... And yet the weakest species to exist as it can't even handle it's own damn feelings without shooting up game tournaments, schools, running people over, flying planes into buildings, etc.



The mutagen of the Turtles' world needs to be real, I want off this boat. :ohwell:

I personally blame the retirement homes

Good thing it wasn't a CoD tournament. So it will be hard to blame a sports game for this.

This Florida Man thing seems to be a meme.

The biggestmeme is the Sam Hyde meme, mainly because the MSM are full of idiots and will report anything troll sites such as 4Chan tell them. Also no, this only gives people in power plenty of ammo (no pun intended) to make this a "video games are deadly" issue.

Is Jack thompson still around? Seems like a good opportunity for him to come back.

Florida has a "concealed carry" law and a "stand your ground" law
The stand your ground law is extremely controversial and many people appose conceal carry as well. I don't believe florida has lax gun laws, but I know they do not have strict gun laws either.

Doubt anything will change with Trump around.

Both perfectly sensible laws.

They are? Seems pretty wild wild dumb west to me.

You can have the strictest gun laws in the world, it wont change the fact that if someone really REALLY wants to get one and use it, they will. People cant grasp this, apparently.

That's OK.

Also, this particular shooting will not be a media frenzy. Killer used a handgun. Sounds like his social media has lots of leftist agitprop, Trump-hating stuff. David Hogg will stay clear of this. Too close to home.

Edit: Also noteworthy, Jacksonville Landing, where this shooting took place... it's a "Gun Free Zone." Both Orlando Pulse (6-12-176) and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (2-14-18 ) were "Gun Free Zone"s as well.

Except the off duty cop in the Orlando Pulse Shooting had a gun

But the gun was the problem!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/27...ents-show.html

Well he used the gun to kill people so maybe we should look how guns are treated in this country especially since the next quote is from your source.

Irrelevant. It is a right. Unless you're a criminal (as in a convicted violent offender or a felon), that's your right. What happens after that, after the gun is in their hand, we can talk about how early warning signs could have been seen, how there could have been actionable this or actionable that... but there it is. It's not confusing.

I dont think its irrelevant to talk about whether or not we should give people who have serioud mental illness guns. Apparently we have the foresight not to give felons guns but apparently by your logic we should give guns to people with a history of mental illness no if, ands or buts. Also I dont think its so much as confusing as it is dumb

Maybe more of a privilege, in the sense that it can and should be taken away for bad behavior.

For example, people convicted of even non-violent felonies can't legally buy or own a gun. Extreme, perhaps, but it makes sense.

I definitely think that people who have exhibited serious mental health issues - especially those who have been institutionalized and/or heavily medicated - should be kept away from buying guns. There definitely should be better records kept of the mentally ill, for one thing. As far as I know, there's nothing stopping a person who was institutionalized in Maine from buying a gun in Kentucky, for example; I'm fairly certain that person wouldn't appear on any kind of database in Kentucky listing them as mentally ill, even if they were severely so.

That's kind of a big problem. In this shooter's case, it appears that he had a serious history of mental illness, yet he had little trouble getting his hands on a gun, and further, transporting it across several states. I can't even begin to get into what's wrong with all of that.

I'm 100% in favor of people's right to own a gun, but some people absolutely shouldn't be allowed to, and they need to tighten that sh*t up a bit. Too many cases like this lately, where the shooter realistically shouldn't have had such an easy go of things.

Comes back to a very, very slippery slope. What do we define "mental illness" as and exactly to whom do we defer judgment as to the boundaries of what said "mental illness" actually is? I mean in terms of who gets to have a gun. Where do we come down on stuff like PTSD? Like, from war? Meaning, our veterans coming home who blew away bad guys to protect our country. They don't get to have guns and exert their basic constitutional right? Utterly absurd.

That's already the case. Though you get ONE non-violent felony you can remove from your record to restore your right to bear arms, as it stands (though even that costs a lot of money). But then that's it, forever. And that sort of makes sense.

I'm aware that's already the case. My father was arrested for a non-violent felony back in 1990; they confiscated all his guns and he wasn't allowed to even own a starter pistol ever again. That's how I found out about that being the rule.

Well, he's only about $2,000-$2,500 from restoring his right to bear arms. Assuming all terms of his previous non-violent conviction are/were met. You only get one of those your whole life, though.

If my idiot sister ever sees fit to give me back the urn he's been resting in for the last 8 years, I'll be sure and give him the message. ;)

Aw sh**, I'm sorry, man. My dad is gone, too.

No need, brother, it's all good. I think I mentioned it once? Probably not common knowledge.

He said he shot better with a bow, anyway.

Even if he was turned down while going the legal route, if he wanted a gun THAT badly, he was gonna get it by other means. So I doubt it really matters how he got it.

Like I said numerous of times, other developed countries with strict gun laws don't really have that problem.

Thats all the more reasons to actually talk about it, I don't think a person who was switched between multiple mental faculties and taking anti psychosis should legally acquire a gun.

How is it "utterly absurd", if they are severely mentally unhealthy and are prone to violent outburst then I think they should't acquire a gun.

Trust me. I really, really don't care about other countries' gun laws.

Because that is just the ultimate slap in the face to our veterans. They go and fight in the front lines of the wars we don't... and then come home and as a reward for protecting our freedom they get their basic constitutional right revoked? Because we're kind of scared of them now? That's insane.

Known a couple of vets with PTSD. One was in Vietnam, and he got panicky anytime a car backfired or something made a loud "bang"; and the other- is my former boss's brother. He occasionally still has nightmares about guys he killed in Iraq. Not really sure I want a gun in the hands of either one if they happen to have an episode. And these are the otherwise "normal" ones.

They've earned that right far more than you (or I, for that matter) ever have.

Maybe so, but that still doesn't mean I'd feel comfortable with a gun in the hands of a guy who ducks for cover and has flashbacks of Nam any time a jet overhead makes a sonic boom. Legal right or not, nobody wants to be responsible for letting someone with KNOWN mental problems potentially shoot up a bunch of nuns or schoolkids. Worst case scenario, I know, but do we really want to take the risk?

Absolutely.

And for all you know you've been surrounded by "scary" war veterans with PTSD your whole life, in every neighborhood you've ever lived in. I'd be proud to live next to them (which makes sense, since I'm married to a war veteran with PTSD). Hell, I'd probably feel even safer.

That's a rather odd way to look at it, but okay. I just don't feel nearly as confident in the continued good will of people who have proven they have the ability to shoot at another human being, and who have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, AND own a gun. That's a bit like giving a bottle of whiskey as a housewarming gift to a recovering alcoholic. Not exactly a great idea.

Gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. But I appreciate your civil counter arguments.

Same. I do respect your side, but I have simply been around too many people who do NOT need to ever be around or own guns, and what is so scary about it is the number of them who do. My stepdud is one of them. He is on antidepressant and antipsychotic medications, so by all logic should never be within 100 feet of any gun, yet he owns several and even has a cc license. Even though my mom had a retraining order against him being within 100 feet of me when I was 9. But he is somehow still allowed to carry.... Can't rightly understand how his "right" trumps all that. Or anyone else's right to own trumps any similar situations, of which we have FAR too many in this country.