Shooting in Jacksonville, Florida

[Vragon2.0]

What if a certain armed portion of the population decides they like an oppressive government when it's aimed at certain groups, and they are willing to enforce government tyranny with their gun rights.

Or what about armed people killing innocent people, while gun right's activists make sure they have access to every type of firearm where they can effectively become a one man army, capable of killing and injuring hundreds.

I can make up scenarios too you know. The one I made was merely to illustrate the next level guns were to like swords and how they were easier to wield and are the weapons of the era.

People never think too deeply when they are supporting an absolute cause. It just comes down to a "good guys vs bad guys" mentality, when things aren't so black and white in the real world.

I can say some are like that. I'm not and not even a gun owner. I'm just trying to find the course of what I'm seeing as the "roots" of the issue, being the metal health of the United States.

The fact is that individual rights were not part of the original interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Back at the founding, the 2nd amendment was mostly about State protection with militias, and much of gun ownership was tied to that. There were gun laws, and unspoken one, which dictated where you could carry, or who could own one, usually based on race and gender - depending on the state. In some respect, our founders were very oppressive against certain groups of people, which was mostly based on religion and race.

the times then yes, what was deemed "citizen" wasn't as universal as now. Now citizen isn't restricted by stuff like that, and there are other rules for permits. I mean, I'm not sure how that makes saying "you can carry a gun for [X] places for citizens" matters.

Today's interpretation of the 2nd amendment has little to do with tyrannically government and militias, and more to do with individual rights..... And while I fully support individual right, I fail to see why they should be unlimited, when they are often part of a political ideology that runs government and can be very authoritarian, and there are those who misuses those unlimited rights to cause great harm upon the people.

They aren't unlimited. Freedoms aren't the same as rights. I dunno, would you say "the press" shouldn't be able to say what it wants if it attacks others? I get what you mean, "if you can misuse the tool and it is often misused, don't have it in reach." The thing here though is, that the misuse of the tool isn't a majority thing, nor is it even done mostly by sane/mentally healthy people. Some peeps will break the law and use tools for bad purposes, and that's not enough of a reason to ban the tool. The only time you ban the tool is when your society is completely incapable of handling it and it requires it. And I'd argue only some areas of some states "maybe" are getting close to that. I think the mental health and responsibility factor is something better to aim for, since banning the tool doesn't fix the problem.

I may not trust government, but I don't trust the people either. But the argument over guns has become very one sided by the right, where any talk of any type of gun control, no matter how small, is an affront to the 2nd amendment and a persons rights.

That's a generalizing thing you have there. I don't think many americans have complained about not having automatics or military weapons. I don't think all gun owners are opposed to the rules/regulations that is getting a firearm legally. If you don't trust people, fine that's your own choice, but not everybody is irresponsible with guns and I think you are over generalizing.

Not to mention rights are damn hard to get back after they're gone.

The 2nd amendment has been perverted for the last 40 years to suite the views if a certain group in the country, to promote an industry, a political ideology, and the hedonistic pleasures of these people, and to intimidate, rather than be about personnel defense and tyrannical government - or even hunting.
- EdyKel from Newgrounds

except that it's accessible to everyone, aka anyone can use a gun. So even if you argue "intimidation" I'd say it loses that when you can have access to the same cards too.

Hopefully this can provide some new perspective on things. And yes, I'm sure there can be a true 'American' culture without the need for firearms...

Probably, when firearms are no long the prime methods of defense in the US. *sigh* I grow tired of this circle so I'm just going to say this one last thing and dip out since I think I've made myself clear.


Cultural differences are a thing. They are sometimes hard to understand and process, and from what I'm seeing, you don't seem to know "why" someone would want a gun save from what you've heard over the "2nd amendment" and all that. I'd suggest that if you are going to research into this, that you look deep into both sides and the people it would affect. Don't follow the stereotypes you hear of and actually look to see who they are and what their idealism is. Also, each state is different, so that's another factor to consider. I hope this can at least help out in getting perspective and if you don't change your position that's fine. It's not my job or interest to sway you or whatnot.

But honestly I think the issue (as I've said a lot) is the mental health and that's an issue that won't be fixed by the policy you are favoring. People will still be at each other's throats and merely have to find other means to harm another.

Anyways, Imma take a break from debates heh, I wish you well.

 

[Nah]

I suppose what I'm getting at is that a set course of action hasn't been settled on a federal level.

Basically all I'm trying to say is that it's fine if they simply have not reached any sort of consensus yet, but that also implies that a discussion has begun. And as far as I know (and I could be wrong on this), they have not begun a discussion at all. And if that's true, I don't see any good reason for them not to have started to attempt to find ways they could possible assist with the problem.

 

[LDSman]

All of my arguments against more gun control still stand.

Defensive Gun Use outweighs criminal use. This guy was committed as a teen so how did he pass the background check?

You will NOT get 2/3rds of the country to agree to amend the constitution. Any efforts to remove guns from the population will result in lots of bloodshed and death.

 

[CrimsonMajestic]

Question: If this person has a history of mental illness, how and why were they able to obtain a gun?.

Purchasing guns and/or other weapons are not the only way of acquiring them (eg stealing guns from parents).

I don't believe that video games make people violent, despite all the times that debate comes up. Just try and not expose your young ones to a game that's not age-suitable for them.

You sure you would want to place the blinders on children when they're most likely going to get exposed to fictional violence outside the home, and having to cope with such (dis)stress in a less safe environment?

I see even parents blaming their children for turning violent because of the games, but because they didn't bother to check the age that game was aimed at.

I would argue this is more a case of ignorance on the parents of what content their children are being exposed to, not just merely checking ESRB ratings & other superficial marketing schemes. That said, this would be a good case for parents becoming gamers.

Wouldn't be surprised if this incident is clearly going to spark the debate on violence and video gaming again, and I hate hearing about it and the stupid excuses the media tries to make.

Anything to allow politicans and/or emotionally-crazed SJW types to control the narrative in culture.

 

[Nah]

Question: If this person has a history of mental illness, how and why were they able to obtain a gun? I don't know a lot of this incident so please fill me in.

This guy was committed as a teen so how did he pass the background check?

I imagine there was some sort of fuck-up, not unlike that church shooting in Texas last year. Failure to properly have his mental illness status on his record, the person or persons doing his background check not doing their job or making a mistake, maybe something changed regarding his mental illness status, etc. But I can't be sure, it's not like I have access to all the information.

....

For those wondering about the laws and whatnot: News sites say that he purchased the guns legally (and recently), so if true, that likely rules out stuff like straw purchases or him using a family member's guns. From what little digging I've done, it's not uncommon for state laws to prohibit sale of firearms to people with documented mental illness/have been documented to have been committed to a mental institution. Florida seems to be one of the states where this is the case.

 

[LDSman]

I imagine there was some sort of psyduck-up, not unlike that church shooting in Texas last year. Failure to properly have his mental illness status on his record, the person or persons doing his background check not doing their job or making a mistake, maybe something changed regarding his mental illness status, etc. But I can't be sure, it's not like I have access to all the information.

....

For those wondering about the laws and whatnot: News sites say that he purchased the guns legally (and recently), so if true, that likely rules out stuff like straw purchases or him using a family member's guns. From what little digging I've done, it's not uncommon for state laws to prohibit sale of firearms to people with documented mental illness/have been documented to have been committed to a mental institution. Florida seems to be one of the states where this is the case.

Katz is from Baltimore.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/nat...pect-History-of-Mental-Illness-491854171.html

 

[Nah]

Katz is from Baltimore.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/nat...pect-History-of-Mental-Illness-491854171.html

oh.....woops

But apparently it's the same deal in Maryland too, they don't really allow sale of firearms to people with a history of mental illness/those who've been committed to a mental institution.

 

[MortalPhoenix]

Sad to see this happen, and sad to see this happening at a video game tournament. Of course, now you have people on the media blaming violent video games for this issue. >.>

 

[BronzeHeart92]

Sad to see this happen, and sad to see this happening at a video game tournament. Of course, now you have people on the media blaming violent video games for this issue. >.>

The things people say...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cei6h4QTLVg

Anyways, here's an article that I hope would provide more information about the epidemic at hand. No one deserves to die needlessly after all...

 

[LDSman]

The things people say...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cei6h4QTLVg

Anyways, here's an article that I hope would provide more information about the epidemic at hand. No one deserves to die needlessly after all...

No article and YouTube link is music?

 

[BronzeHeart92]

No article and YouTube link is music?

Oh, my apologies. It seems that I still had the previous link on the clipboard. What a blunder...

 

[Nah]

i suppose i could make a separate thread, but eh, who cares:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...and-leaves-4-dead-including-suspect/23533741/
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/19/us/wisconsin-active-shooter-report/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gunman-dead-shooting-pennsylvania-judges-office-n911176

3 more this week

first one happened a couple of hours ago it seems

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

BronzeHeart92, here's something you need to understand and we've said this time and time and time again and we're really sick of saying the same thing over and over again..
Guns themselves are not the issue. Banning guns by repealing the 2nd Amendment won't do anything just like war on drugs stops heroin, crack, meth, etc abuse and drunk driving being illegal makes it so drunk drivers don't get into a vehicle... The fact is this, criminals will be criminals cause they're criminals. It's what they do. They commit crimes. Especially when it comes to crimes such as murder, theft, rape, extortion...

To be real, the day America bans guns is the day America will have it's falling out. This would piss more than half the population off, no joke. Even lots of democrats believe in the 2nd Amendment. No matter how you look at it, it wouldn't end well in America. If America riots during protests imagine what they'll do when they're freedoms get stripped.

 

[Altairis]

okay, this might be pretty stupid, but....

I'm not entirely sure what people mean when they want to ban guns. do they literally want the police to go to every doorstep and physically take guns from people? do they want to ban the sale of them? how are either of these things going to work when they are SO many guns out there already? unlike other stuff, if maintained properly, guns don't really get old, so the amount of guns in circulation is only ever increasing.

having stricter sales criteria might also work but that's not going to stop them from getting around, either, bar the fact that illegal gun sales would still happen. for example, my dad owns a few guns. he's a great dude and just owns them because he likes to collect them and occasionally hunt. they're stored according to law, in their own safe separate from the ammo safe, with a lock code I don't even know. but.... if I really wanted to get his guns, I could probably figure out a way. so how is increasing the standards for who you sell guns to going to help if an adult could pass but not all of their family members? do you have to test them all too? how often?

 

[gimmepie]

okay, this might be pretty stupid, but....

I'm not entirely sure what people mean when they want to ban guns. do they literally want the police to go to every doorstep and physically take guns from people? do they want to ban the sale of them? how are either of these things going to work when they are SO many guns out there already? unlike other stuff, if maintained properly, guns don't really get old, so the amount of guns in circulation is only ever increasing.

having stricter sales criteria might also work but that's not going to stop them from getting around, either, bar the fact that illegal gun sales would still happen. for example, my dad owns a few guns. he's a great dude and just owns them because he likes to collect them and occasionally hunt. they're stored according to law, in their own safe separate from the ammo safe, with a lock code I don't even know. but.... if I really wanted to get his guns, I could probably figure out a way. so how is increasing the standards for who you sell guns to going to help if an adult could pass but not all of their family members? do you have to test them all too? how often?

I don't think possibility of failure is an excuse not to try given the serious gun violence problem. No measure is going to be perfect but having stricter sales regulations like better mental health/background checks, more uniform regulations across the country and also limiting the types of firearms that can be sold would still be a dramatic improvement over the current state of affairs where you can get an excessively high powered weapon from Walmart, and if you can't you can just drive 30 minutes to the next state across and bring it back.

I think having a goal of banning guns or outright stopping them is unrealistic and impractical but I don't see how limiting the flow of guns moving into and around the American public is anything but a net positive.

As to how to get to people who *have* guns. Well there should be a list of legal gun owners since you need a license for your firearms. In initiating that change, run a mandatory buyback scheme for any high-powered weaponry first. There's a lot of people with poor finances who'd be grateful for the money. Then, go door-to-door to the people not checked off the list if you really have to. It'd be a long process and an expensive one and it wouldn't get every unreasonably powerful weapon off the street but it would have a sizeable impact. Of course, this would have to be the end game not the starting point since the US economy is in shambles thanks to rampant capitalism but that's another story. I don't think being unable to achieve that endgame currently should stop people from starting with the basic tightening of regulations and making them more uniform.

Edit: As a side note, as I've mentioned before, you can enact gun control without repealing the second amendment. Limiting what guns people can have and making them go through more hoops to purchase them is not the same as taking away the right to own a gun at all.

 

[Charlie Brown]

Evaluation of effects of buyback scheme in Australia, for reference: http://theconversation.com/factchec...e-the-number-of-gun-deaths-in-australia-85836

See also this study (https://academic.oup.com/aler/article-abstract/12/2/509/99272) which found a ?statistically significant decline in firearm deaths in states with higher firearm buyback rates?

 

[Altairis]

I don't think possibility of failure is an excuse not to try given the serious gun violence problem. No measure is going to be perfect but having stricter sales regulations like better mental health/background checks, more uniform regulations across the country and also limiting the types of firearms that can be sold would still be a dramatic improvement over the current state of affairs where you can get an excessively high powered weapon from Walmart, and if you can't you can just drive 30 minutes to the next state across and bring it back.

I think having a goal of banning guns or outright stopping them is unrealistic and impractical but I don't see how limiting the flow of guns moving into and around the American public is anything but a net positive.

As to how to get to people who *have* guns. Well there should be a list of legal gun owners since you need a license for your firearms. In initiating that change, run a mandatory buyback scheme for any high-powered weaponry first. There's a lot of people with poor finances who'd be grateful for the money. Then, go door-to-door to the people not checked off the list if you really have to. It'd be a long process and an expensive one and it wouldn't get every unreasonably powerful weapon off the street but it would have a sizeable impact. Of course, this would have to be the end game not the starting point since the US economy is in shambles thanks to rampant capitalism but that's another story. I don't think being unable to achieve that endgame currently should stop people from starting with the basic tightening of regulations and making them more realistic.

thank you for clarifying!

I agree that restricting the types would be a good start (because not only are there more shootings, but the more recent ones have also been more deadly, but I haven't really looked for information on the types of guns used yet, so I'm just thinking out loud here). I also agree that the background checks can be changed, for example, by requiring people to get permits/background checks from local law enforcement rather than filling out a form on their own. But what sort of stuff should be improved in the mental health department, other than looking for being hospitalized due to concerns?

edit: totally forgot about buyback, so thank you for linking information on that!

 

[gimmepie]

thank you for clarifying!

I agree that restricting the types would be a good start (because not only are there more shootings, but the more recent ones have also been more deadly, but I haven't really looked for information on the types of guns used yet, so I'm just thinking out loud here). I also agree that the background checks can be changed, for example, by requiring people to get permits/background checks from local law enforcement rather than filling out a form on their own. But what sort of stuff should be improved in the mental health department, other than looking for being hospitalized due to concerns?

edit: totally forgot about buyback, so thank you for linking information on that!

Employing people trained to do an actual mental health screening so there was an up-to-date test for any of the common disorders would be good, rather than just checking if they've been in a psych ward anywhere. Not just an easily-lied-to questionnaire either, I think if a professional has concerns even if all the right answers are given, then those concerns should trump all else.

I don't even know if we do that here but maybe we should.

 

[BronzeHeart92]

BronzeHeart92, here's something you need to understand and we've said this time and time and time again and we're really sick of saying the same thing over and over again..
Guns themselves are not the issue. Banning guns by repealing the 2nd Amendment won't do anything just like war on drugs stops heroin, crack, meth, etc abuse and drunk driving being illegal makes it so drunk drivers don't get into a vehicle... The fact is this, criminals will be criminals cause they're criminals. It's what they do. They commit crimes. Especially when it comes to crimes such as murder, theft, rape, extortion...

To be real, the day America bans guns is the day America will have it's falling out. This would piss more than half the population off, no joke. Even lots of democrats believe in the 2nd Amendment. No matter how you look at it, it wouldn't end well in America. If America riots during protests imagine what they'll do when they're freedoms get stripped.

I'm just concerned over the lives of Americans, that's all. How many mass shootings will it take for people to seriously take a look into their gun problem I wonder...

 

[Corrin]

I'm sorry but if you're against gun control at this point, after so many lives has been lost, I seriously question your sense.
How many kids need to die in schools?
People in clubs?
People just out and about?
How many before you look at this and say "it's enough"?

Guns.Are.The.Issue. You just need to look at other countries with gun control laws, this doesn't happen nearly as much as the states.

The second amendment is BS, how is carrying a deadly weapon a right? Have the amendments even been looked at since the 1800s where maybe this would have been relevant? But it's 2018 now.