Well this is a very sad Story from Jacksonville, Florida. During a Madden NFL Championship Series tournament where Shot's Fired. At least 4 People are dead and 11 people are Injurde so far.

The News

1 hour ago, YumaVY2 said:

Well this is a very sad Story from Jacksonville, Florida. During a Madden NFL Championship Series tournament where Shot's Fired. At least 4 People are dead and 11 people are Injurde so far.

The News

 

It's truly a sign of the times when you can legitimately say "It's not as bad as I thought it'd be" to a story like this. 

Inb4 everyone says "ViDeO gAmEs MaKe PeOpLe ViOlEnT" and decide to regulate them or tournaments.

For those wanting more information:  https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/9ahy71/megathread_mass_shooting_at_madden_tournament_in/

 

 

To add onto my previous post.

 

Quote

He did not know if Katz knew the victims.

 

That doesn't really matter in this case.  Another article with a bit more information said that the shooter had been part of the tournament and was eliminated.  Another video, a Twitch fails video, showed that the day before, there had been an argument in the background.

 

https://livestreamfails.com/post/27788

 

My theory, that most are probably going to conclude, is that he lost, got mad at either a team mate or opponent, and decided this was how he got even.  A couple other things to mention.

 

1) Remember all those idiots that said shooting games were bad and influenced your decisions? This was a fuckin football game!  Guess all those people just got a hard dose of reality.

 

2) A lot of people are going to rush to "mental illness", and frankly, even if the parents reveal (or have already, I'm not sure on that part) he did have some issues, mental illness played ZERO part in this.  He lost a game, and got angry.  Those of us that play competitive video games have gotten angry before.  Hell, I still rage when playing Battlefield games.  I have some mental disabilities, I do and say things spur of the moment with no control and not think about them till after the fact.  Even with these factors, I have never had the thought or the urge to kill someone.

 

However, what can be more powerful than mental illness is anger. Intense anger about anything can drive someone to do something rash, especially if they might be emotionally compromised.  We don't know why he did it, we never will, but lets remember that mental illness is not always the reason people do the heinous things we see or hear about.

I saw a Video on YouTube with a Cut out from the Stream. It was terrifying too her it. All the screams and shoot's... And after the last shoot you can hear that the Weapons drops to the Floor.

 

[Moderator Edit] While the video doesn't show anything graphic, the audio is pretty intense, and most likely captures the last moment of some people's lives.  For this reason, I am removing the link from this post.  If you want to hear it, you can find it on Youtube.  Viewer discretion is heavily advised.

Edited August 27, 20187 yr by Giordano

Yet another mass shooter on SSRI drugs. If we want serious change, we need to do the following:

 

1. Take a serious look at the drugs we are pumping children full of and stop diagnosing "ADD" and "ADHD" because a kid finds school boring

2. Bring back mental asylums. People that break down, such as Adam Lanza or Katz were known to have mental issues. They shouldn't of been on the streets to begin with

3. Make psychiatric records exempt from Doctor/Patient confidentiality. This will allow background checks for firearm purchases to prevent these people from buying firearms.

 

Banning guns which prevent between 800,000 and 2 million crimes every year will just lead to a rise in crime.

No one talked about banning guns. Don't feel so defensive about your precious, deadly toys.

5 hours ago, c13 said:

Banning guns which prevent between 800,000 and 2 million crimes every year will just lead to a rise in crime.

Watch how many Deadly Crimes with Firearms are commited in the US and compare this to a land where you can't get a Firearm so easliy.

 

It's 820 in Germany (750 from Sucide and 70 from Crimes) (Source: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/197/umfrage/straftaten-in-deutschland-seit-1997/ )

And in the US it's 406.500 (with Suiced included)

And in germany without a Weapons Right like in the US we had 5. 761.984 crimes last year the lowest crime rate since 1993.

Weapons are War machines, they only bring Devastation. They shouldn't be in hand of Civilians.

 

 

 

35 minutes ago, YumaVY2 said:

Watch how many Deadly Crimes with Firearms are commited in the US and compare this to a land where you can't get a Firearm so easliy.

 

It's 820 in Germany (750 from Sucide and 70 from Crimes) (Source: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/197/umfrage/straftaten-in-deutschland-seit-1997/ )

And in the US it's 406.500 (with Suiced included)

And in germany without a Weapons Right like in the US we had 5. 761.984 crimes last year the lowest crime rate since 1993.

Weapons are War machines, they only bring Devastation. They shouldn't be in hand of Civilians.

 

 

 

This argument has been hashed out time, and time, and time again on here. I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that I'd be safer without my guns.

 

Crime rates in the US are dropping as well while thousands of guns are being purchased every day. This is with every single state allowing concealed carry permits for it's residents and many states having no requirement for a permit to carry.

 

The problem with arguments like yours is that it inherently assumes all people who have firearms are evil and looking to kill each other. If this was the case, then suburban and rural areas would be littered with bodies, as they have the highest firearm ownership rates.

 

You conveniently ignored the most damning part of my post, so I'll elaborate on it. After the "Assault Weapon" Ban of 1994, the Clinton administration, easily the most successful administration to wage war on the 2nd amendment, directed the Center for Disease Control to study the use of firearms in self defense cases. It's results completely contradicted what they were hoping for. The 10 year study, from 1994 to 2004, found firearms were used in self defense cases to prevent  crimes between 800,000 to 2.5 million times. The reason why an exact number is so hard to find is because if a crime is prevented, then there is no reason for police to make a report on it.

 

The reason why people like me cling to our guns so feverishly is because they are a great equalizer.  A favorite quote of mine is "God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal." An average woman would have no hope of fighting off an average male attempting to cause her harm. An elderly person would have no hope of fighting off an average male attempting to harm him or her. An average male would have no hope of fighting off multiple men attempting to harm him or his family.

 

A majority of gun crime is committed in low income areas in major cities, where gang life is the only way to make money. Those areas also have the strictest gun control laws. For a while, it was illegal to leave your house with a firearm in Chicago unless it was disassembled. Surprisingly, gangbangers didn't give a shit about it.

 

A majority of mass shootings, which make the news far more often than the 50+ people shot a week in Chicago, occur in gun free zones. In Nevada, it is illegal to bring a firearm into a hotel. That didn't stop Steven Paddock. It is illegal nationwide to bring a firearm into a school. That didn't stop Adam Lanza. James Holmes, the shooter who shot up a screening of The Dark Knight Rises, had multiple theaters with larger auditoriums closer to home than the one he chose. The one he went to was a gun free zone.

 

People that commit mass shootings are attempting to get the highest body count. They can't do that if some one shoots back at them because it brings them from offense to defense. Or it just kills them. In a vast majority of cases, attempted mass shooters either give up or kill themselves when confronted with some one with a gun, be it law enforcement or civilians.

 

Firearms are used for sport, hunting (unlike Germany, there is vast wilderness in the US with large predators), and most importantly, to protect the most inherent natural right, the one to self defense.

48 minutes ago, c13 said:

People that commit mass shootings are attempting to get the highest body count. They can't do that if some one shoots back at them

 

They couldn't do that either if they didn't have access to those firearms in the first place, since they'd have to use other kinds of weapons, like knives, that require more strength, stamina, skill on top of having to go in melee range (which would already be a deterrent, as well as forcing them having to run after their potential victims rather than standing from afar and shooting them like ducks), and offer the victims more chances to defend themselves as well as survive if they get hurt, on the contrary of firearms that require no strength, no stamina and pretty much no skill if shooting at point blank range, offering the victims almost no chance to survive if they get shot.

 

But yes, of course, they're not the issue.

Edited August 28, 20187 yr by Hystery

3 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

They couldn't do that either if they didn't have access to those firearms in the first place, since they'd have to use other kinds of weapons, like knives, that require more strength, stamina, skill on top of having to go in melee range (which would already be a deterrent, as well as forcing them having to run after their potential victims rather than standing from afar and shooting them like ducks), and offer the victims more chances to defend themselves as well as survive if they get hurt, on the contrary of firearms that require no strength, no stamina and pretty much no skill if shooting at point blank range, offering the victims almost no chance to survive if they get shot.

 

But yes, of course, they're not the issue.

Again, ignoring every other part of the post like you always do.

 

Like I said in my post, firearms are an equalizer. While if he had a knife, he was slashing at people right next to him, had one person been concealed carrying, the stabber could of been taken out from a distance and injuries could have been prevented.

 

Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. That is where he bought the guns. Court documents show that the shooter was on SSRI, like so many others. He punched through the door of his mom's bedroom because she hid a video game controller. Unlike you, I offered a solution that would make sense besides "ban all guns."

 

And what do you mean "no chance to survive." Over 75% of gunshot victims are able to be saved in the US.

 

You don't care about the natural right to self defense, so I shouldn't be surprised.

I don't know what the solution is, but can't we all agree that people who posses firearms should at the very least be trained in using said firearm and not have a criminal record the size of a football field. 

37 minutes ago, c13 said:

Unlike you, I offered a solution that would make sense besides "ban all guns."

 

The thing is, no one here talked about banning guns on this thread, but you. No one. You can scroll up, you'll see for yourself. You're so obsessively stuck up on it, that  the moment a shooting happens, you feel the need to justify the right to bear arms, even though no one has questioned it so far on this thread. If that's not an unconscious feeling of guilt, I don't what is. 

 

Point is, bla bla guns, bla bla can't compare, bla bla "murica best gimme muh gunz", already been discussed billion times. You don't want people to question your 2nd amendment? Don't bring it yourself on the table to begin with, problem solved. 

 

Not even gonna say a word on the "natural right to self-defense" that I seemingly don't care about because it's pure demagogic bullshit that makes no sense whatsoever. 

2 hours ago, c13 said:

Crime rates in the US are dropping as well while thousands of guns are being purchased every day¹. 

The problem with arguments like yours is that it inherently assumes all people who have firearms are evil and looking to kill each other. If this was the case, then suburban and rural areas would be littered with bodies, as they have the highest firearm ownership rates².

The reason why an exact number is so hard to find is because if a crime is prevented, then there is no reason for police to make a report on it.³

The reason why people like me cling to our guns so feverishly is because they are a great equalizer.  A favorite quote of mine is "God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal." An average woman would have no hope of fighting off an average male attempting to cause her harm. An elderly person would have no hope of fighting off an average male attempting to harm him or her. An average male would have no hope of fighting off multiple men attempting to harm him or his family.⁴

A majority of gun crime is committed in low income areas in major cities, where gang life is the only way to make money. Those areas also have the strictest gun control laws. For a while, it was illegal to leave your house with a firearm in Chicago unless it was disassembled. Surprisingly, gangbangers didn't give a shit about it.⁵

A majority of mass shootings, which make the news far more often than the 50+ people shot a week in Chicago, occur in gun free zones. In Nevada, it is illegal to bring a firearm into a hotel. That didn't stop Steven Paddock. It is illegal nationwide to bring a firearm into a school. That didn't stop Adam Lanza. James Holmes, the shooter who shot up a screening of The Dark Knight Rises, had multiple theaters with larger auditoriums closer to home than the one he chose. The one he went to was a gun free zone.⁶

Or it just kills them. In a vast majority of cases, attempted mass shooters either give up or kill themselves when confronted with some one with a gun, be it law enforcement or civilians.⁷

 

Firearms are used for sport, hunting⁸ (unlike Germany, there is vast wilderness in the US with large predators), and most importantly, to protect the most inherent natural right, the one to self defense.

¹Nothing in that first article points to firearm purchases being a cause of less firearm-related violent crime. The second article you provide isn't about how more guns = less crime, it's about how the gangs down in Chicago are the ones shooting each other up. There was one paragraph mentioning specifically that the purchase of more firearms resulted in a decrease in crime, and the only evidence to back it up was from one author's suggestive insight.

Here are some quotes from the second article.

Quote

While firearm violence accounted for about 70 percent of all homicides between 1993 and 2011, guns were used in less than 10 percent of all non-fatal violent crimes.

 

What exactly is this supposed to be defending? These two statements can easily be perceived as, "guns make it easier for criminals to kill people."

 

Quote

...at least not for law-abiding legal buyers.

 

Early in the article, Bell writes about how only 12% of jailed criminals obtained their firearm legally. A few paragraphs further into the article and he says that the firearm purchase increase was all done legally. We're not worried about sane owners when we talk about gun control. You're seriously mistaken if you think that. The control of guns is called gun control, of course, but that includes illegal firearms as well as people who shouldn't be owning guns, too, believe it or not.

 

Quote

Is John Lott, the author of “More Guns, Less Crime” right? Does the rapid growth of gun ownership and armed citizens have anything to do with a diminishing gun violence trend? His expansive research concludes that state “shall issue” laws which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons do produce a steady decrease in violent crime. He explains that this is logical because criminals are deterred by the risk of attacking an armed target, so as more citizens arm themselves, danger to the criminals increases.

 

Here is the one paragraph in the article that suggests that fatal, firearm-related violence was a consequence of an increase in legal firearm purchases.

 

Quote

Fifty-five percent of the homicide victims were black, far beyond their 13 percent share of the population

 

Okay...that's unnecessary information when the discussion is about gun-related crime rate decreases as a result of more firearms in circulation...The article seems more dedicated to pushing the blame on Hispanic and Black males than it does to explaining why more guns is less gun crime.

 

Quote

Gwainevere Catchings Hess, president of the Black Women’s Agenda (BWA), Inc., an organization that strongly advocates strict gun-control legislation, rightly points out that  “In 2009, black males ages 15-19 were eight times as likely as white males the same age, and 2.5 times as likely as their Hispanic peers to be killed in a gun homicide.”

Those are terrible statistics, but here are some others. Today, 72% of black children are born out of wedlock, as are 53% of Hispanic children and 36% of white children. Back in 1965, 25% of black children were born out of wedlock, nearly one-third fewer. As a result, promiscuous rappers, prosperous dope peddlers and street gang leaders are becoming ever more influential role models. It’s probably no big stretch of imagination to correlate such grossly disproportionate crime and victimization rates with comparably staggering rates of single-parent families, those without fathers in particular.

 

That is hilarious! This guy should do stand-up. I think we're done with that article.

 

²Again, no one who legally owns a firearm and is known to be a stable person is someone to worry about. Gun control is specifically about those who have intentions to commit crimes and how "easy" it is for them to obtain it. I know that when you read that sentence, you think that I and everyone else who shares my viewpoint is referring to guns purchased legally and for self-defense or sport. We're not. Get that out of your head the next time you get into a discussion like this. We're referring specifically to those who have committed or have intention to commit a firearm-related crime and how, quite obviously, it was inexplicably easy for them and other criminals to obtain their firearms.

³Why wouldn't they write up a report? Someone attempted to commit a crime and they should be charged, they shouldn't walk away. That requires a report.

⁴This is a problem. You shouldn't have to think of your gun as "the great equalizer", you shouldn't even have to worry about being injured by someone else with a firearm. By making this statement, it sounds to me like you're admitting that there is some sort of firearm/weapon-related problem and it's causing trouble to innocent people. But I'd love to hear what you have to say about that.

⁵Please provide evidence, I can't find anything about this law.

⁶Stephen Paddock was a registered owner who had legally purchased dozens of firearms. Nowhere can I find that it is illegal to bring firearms into hotels in Nevada as long as they are stored properly. According to NevadaCarry.org they can be brought into casinos. Every gun ownership forum I checked that brought up the question about weapons in hotels in Nevada agreed that it was okay as long as they were in bags, which is exactly what Paddock did. Adam Lanza used weapons that were his mother's and were legally purchased. James Holmes purchased some of his weapons through gun shops and a Bass Pro Shops legally with background checks. You're sort of hurting your own argument.

⁷While I don't disagree with this, evidence would be nice. If a shooter began firing into a crowd or was in an enclosed area (like a school), how would more shooters help assure that no one got hurt? The only way to truly stop a shooter without too many injuries is to either prevent it before the plan can develop or have well-trained police officers/guards. In the case of Paddock's shooting, bystanders on the ground firing their weapons up at him would have done nothing but injured other vacationers and cause further damage to property.

⁸The guns that are used for hunting are typically not used in shootings.

 

I firmly believe that we need a change in mental health rehabilitation, quality of life in jail and reasons for incarceration (as well as rehabilitation for what comes after), and some changes to how one can obtain firearms. I'm not advocating that firearms be taken away because I understand the importance and relationship that people have with their guns, but we could and should take a look at countries like Norway and Australia for our healthcare and gun-control policies.

 

I recently visited some major Italian cities and noticed that there are armed guards in busy locations throughout the city. Italy, which allows its citizens to purchase firearms, is comparable to Finland and is better than Canada when it comes to firearm-related homicides. Australia also allows its citizens to purchase firearms, as does Austria and Norway which have some of the highest ownership rates per 100 citizens. They all are among the lowest when it comes to gun-related homicides per capita.

Edited August 29, 20187 yr by theninja35

Moderator notice: Really, the gun debate again? @c13 There was not one single mention of banning guns in this thread until you posted.  Please don't light the match in the future.  Lets move on from this topic.

I heard he came back and shot up the same booth he lost his critical game at. And didn't he only kill the two people that were playing against him and argued with him the previous day?. Funny with 2 dead and a mere 10 wounded this is on the top of the news feed here in the US. Meanwhile over the weekend in Chicago we got 40+ dead, and 70+ shot and wounded in just a mere three days (Fri-Sun). Won't hear about that on the news though, no narrative to work there. I mean Chicago has the TOUGHEST handgun and firearms laws in the US...and yet the HIGHEST murder rate and people charged with violent crimes while in possession of handguns. Most with defaced or completely removed serial numbers. No point to get started talking about laws and stuff, because they don't work against the mentally ill and criminals anyway. Also, this is about evil. Just like the Las Vegas loser nutjob. We may never know why exactly but some things we can be sure about. These people are cowardly losers, afraid of facing life on its own terms. They take the easy way out and are mentally warped enough to try and take some innocent people with them. I'm glad he had the courage to pull the trigger on himself so our tax dollars would not be going to use on him. Sick of seeing videos of that Cruz' kid and people fawning over him. These type of criminals ( mass shooters of innocents) should face a new type of execution sentence in the United States. Not a nice opiate lethal injection, I'm talking about some " necklacing " like they do down south. Put a tire over your head and dump diesel on you and flick a butt' at your feet and watch you burn. There is a special place in hell for people that perform these acts, but until they reach that hell they should suffer as much as humanely possible. The fact that Lanza' and Cruz' are still eating 3 meals a day and getting to exercise makes me sick to my stomach. Once you cross into a realm of clear and conscious evil such as these shooters have you should lose all your human and god given rights in the constitution and bill of rights. It saddens and infuriates me every time i hear about one of these incidents. Thank god given the close space and amount of people only two were fatally shot. Once again, not sure if this was a " random mass shooting " or more of a targeted attack against the people who beat him the previous days/matches. I mean he had a 2nd pistol on him he never even used. He executed himself with his first gun. I feel like after he shot the two kids he kinda realized the gravity of the situation and just ended it right there. 

Is the executioner better than the Murderer himself?

 

My last word on this debate.

4 hours ago, YumaVY2 said:

Is the executioner better than the Murderer himself?

 

My last word on this debate.

 

I pretty much agree with you, but I believe this is really a european view on things. A saying I heard some time ago was like this: "Yes, if someone killed my wife, my mother, my son or my friend, I'd want them dead, very much so. But I would not like nor want to live in a state that helps me achieving this." Sums up what many people think here in Europe.

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by Hystery

4 hours ago, YumaVY2 said:

Is the executioner better than the Murderer himself?

 

 

If you weren't willing to get in a huge debate over it, you shouldn't of posted at all.  I was going to type out a more thoughtful reply, but there's no point.

 

22 hours ago, GTALawEnforcer said:

 These type of criminals ( mass shooters of innocents) should face a new type of execution sentence in the United States. Not a nice opiate lethal injection, I'm talking about some " necklacing " like they do down south. Put a tire over your head and dump diesel on you and flick a butt' at your feet and watch you burn. There is a special place in hell for people that perform these acts, but until they reach that hell they should suffer as much as humanely possible.

 

Frankly, you continue to amaze me, and not in a good way. What you're suggesting makes you no better than the suspect. He may of killed people, but you're wanting to torture someone.  You know, what happens to POWs during war.    Like it or not, a mass shooter is still a human being with rights! Nowhere in our constitution does it say "once you commit a heinous crime, you forfeit your rights". In fact, this is the exact same in most civilized countries.  You are advocating torturing American citizens.   The fact that you can say this, and I know you mean it, deeply concerns me, and makes me very grateful people like you will never be in a position of power.

8 minutes ago, Giordano said:

 

If you weren't willing to get in a huge debate over it, you shouldn't of posted at all.  I was going to type out a more thoughtful reply, but there's no point.

 

 

Frankly, you continue to amaze me, and not in a good way. What you're suggesting makes you no better than the suspect. He may of killed people, but you're wanting to torture someone.  You know, what happens to POWs during war.    Like it or not, a mass shooter is still a human being with rights! Nowhere in our constitution does it say "once you commit a heinous crime, you forfeit your rights". In fact, this is the exact same in most civilized countries.  You are advocating torturing American citizens.   The fact that you can say this, and I know you mean it, deeply concerns me, and makes me very grateful people like you will never be in a position of power.

 

 

No point in debating on this forum, just leads to disciplinary action. As far as I'm concerned if you committed a terrorist act in the name of a foreign country or have committed a MASS SHOOTING.... You are no longer an American Citizen. You are a piece of scum that needs removal. Sorry the frank and unfiltered truth offends you. Also I'm not saying I'M the one that performs the execution. I mean someone else would obviously do that. I mean are you of the opinion that the guy who drops the lever for the electric chair or the nurse that starts the lethal injection drip is no better than the murderer she is putting down?. And your right, there is no point. Since you and your compadres don't bother listening or taking me seriously, nor do i to you anymore. I'm glad at least we recognize that about each-other at this point. Let's just all be glad he ate his gun and is not wasting US tax dollars. If only all mass shooters did that. 😕

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by GTALawEnforcer