• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Shooting in Jacksonville, Florida

8,973
Posts
18
Years
According to this:

The Constitution's Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it.

to non-americans: the odds of this happening are, to be quite blunt, unrealistic.

I mean, it's not like you're the only ones asking this. I'd argue most of America is asking when is enough going to be enough. It's just that our party currently in power is flat-out uninterested in changing anything and that's going to stay the norm unless the party in control changes. That's the ugly truth of the matter.
 
316
Posts
6
Years
According to this:



to non-americans: the odds of this happening are, to be quite blunt, unrealistic.

I mean, it's not like you're the only ones asking this. I'd argue most of America is asking when is enough going to be enough. It's just that our party currently in power is flat-out uninterested in changing anything and that's going to stay the norm unless the party in control changes. That's the ugly truth of the matter.

That's true I suppose... Even so, I'm still hoping they can in fact repeal it after all. Nothing lasts forever. And I'm sure Americans are beginning to realize that as well.
 

Miss Wendighost

Satan's Little Princess
709
Posts
7
Years
I believe that security did not act properly, as in such a large-scale event, there would most likely be a bag search. I don't know how they could've failed to detect a firearm on the suspect's person.

On the other hand, I believe that it was an act out of uncontrollable rage, due to the words that the announcer used to describe the suspect. All in all, the suspect was a coward for choosing to end his own life rather than face his horrific actions.
 
11,780
Posts
20
Years
  • Age 36
  • Seen Feb 9, 2024
Its a freakin` game for god sakes....not worth pulling this shit. So you lost big deal no need to shoot the place up over it.
 

Vragon2.0

Say it with me (Vray-gun)
420
Posts
6
Years
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45319478

Oh man, when will people say enough is enough? And now even gamers aren't safe apparently... Look, I know how awful it might be from your perspective but I think it's time for USA to seriously consider repealing the 2nd Amendment already. After all, we in Europe doesn't have gun rights and yet we are still free...

if you're done with your preachiness and talking to the US as if it's not a collection of states each with their own stances, cultures and thoughts on gun control then perhaps you could actually think about why things are like this and why so many peeps are for/against the second amendment.

I've noticed you are very anti-gun (and make sure to emphasize that a lot) and while I disagree with that stance I understand it's your own thoughts on the matter, which is fair. However, picking whatever gun case you have and saying "this is why you all should wake up" doesn't help your argument, not just from coming off as some condescending a**hole, but also that you don't give the reasoning, logic, how it connect, a viable solution and other things that go into this. AKA: you just saying "get better by doing what I am saying" without actually giving a way to do it.

It isn't as easy as snapping your fingers and removing guns and poof you're done. Gimmie makes a better case with gun control, but even then those haven't been settled on and honestly a mess that wouldn't work nationally the same for each state. While Gun Control is ideal for some places, I do think there needs to be an addressing in other areas I think are more involved with this, "aka: youth and why they are like this. Why are these actions being taken and where does it tie in well."

You can take the toy from the child, but that doesn't teach the child how to handle himself now does it?

Not to mention, just 'cause one kook goes and does such a thing doesn't mean he speaks for the entire class. We've had these guns laws close to the same for a long time so it's curious why things are getting how they are now. I think some good look into as to why many of the youth is resorting to this action is better called for than trying to remove an amendment that wouldn't just be getting rid of a right, but also open another big door for government boundaries being laxed.

The simple thing is, a lot of the US doesn't like government with too much power in their lives. Some are fine with it, it's the cons you get with multiculturalism and a bunch of different states. I don't foresee it being repealed however and honestly hope none of them do for what I talked about earlier.

So, if you're going to make a case about why the "backwards US" should get rid of their guns, I suggest you actually make it a case and not some speaking from the heart that nobody cares to hear when such a tragedy has happened and would rather do something to better this result.
 

Nah

15,926
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen today
I just have to wonder what compels the federal government to not do anything at all about this. On the state and local levels you see at least a little bit being attempted to combat the problem. Like, for example, iirc the state of New York has over the past few years and is currently passing/working on passing more/stricter gun control. Some individual school districts in the nation have hired armed security personnel. But this problem could use help from the federal government, so....
 
Last edited:
11,780
Posts
20
Years
  • Age 36
  • Seen Feb 9, 2024
Its because the NRA has money (whether they want to admit it or not) and they are in a lot of our governments back pockets. Which is why nothing is really being done despite all of us citizens wanting something done.

The only bad thing now is because it happened at a video game tournament they will use that as an excuse. How we need to control video games and its the video games themselves that are the reason people do this. Which is a load of shit.
 
Last edited:

Vragon2.0

Say it with me (Vray-gun)
420
Posts
6
Years
I just have to wonder what compels the federal government to not do anything at all about this. On the state and local levels you see at least a little bit being attempted to combat the problem. Like, for example, iirc the state of New York has over the past few years and is currently passing/working on passing more/stricter gun control. Some individual school districts in the nation have hired armed security personnel. But this problem could use help from the federal government, so....
Its because the NRA has money (whether they want to admit it or not) and they are in a lot of our governments back pockets. Which is why nothing is really being done despite all of us citizens wanting something done.

The only bad thing now is because it happened at a video game tournament they will use that as an excuse. How we need to control video games and its the video games themselves that are the reason people do this. Which is a load of muk.

Something I can say is that the government won't be fast automatically. Now, I'm not saying they are going to do anything, but something important to remember is that in our day and age things are expected to be dealt with as soon as they're done, when not always is there a proper strat made or whatnot.

Now before we get into how Gun Control has been called for a while now, I'm saying that's exactly it. No real plan has been agreed upon or an approach created on a Federalist level and honestly, I think they'd just make it worse. Not just 'cause they'd be making regulations on all states over the cultural things of one, but that it'd also be a rushed process for a one solution that I honestly don't think will solve it.

Frankly, I think the federalists can help if they put the research into figuring out the causes for these and proper ways to combat them. Maybe holding county groups accountable to put tax payer money to where it's supposed to go, like schools and other things. Or perhaps to help grant to tutors and people to help support those going through hard mental stress or have shown signs of violent action.

But with all these demands going on, I don't think any real change will happen if we expect it to be the government, since it's more of a "all states or nothing" unless they specifically aim for certain states which I kinda see not going well.
 

Nah

15,926
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen today
Something I can say is that the government won't be fast automatically. Now, I'm not saying they are going to do anything, but something important to remember is that in our day and age things are expected to be dealt with as soon as they're done, when not always is there a proper strat made or whatnot.

Now before we get into how Gun Control has been called for a while now, I'm saying that's exactly it. No real plan has been agreed upon or an approach created on a Federalist level and honestly, I think they'd just make it worse. Not just 'cause they'd be making regulations on all states over the cultural things of one, but that it'd also be a rushed process for a one solution that I honestly don't think will solve it.

Frankly, I think the federalists can help if they put the research into figuring out the causes for these and proper ways to combat them. Maybe holding county groups accountable to put tax payer money to where it's supposed to go, like schools and other things. Or perhaps to help grant to tutors and people to help support those going through hard mental stress or have shown signs of violent action.

But with all these demands going on, I don't think any real change will happen if we expect it to be the government, since it's more of a "all states or nothing" unless they specifically aim for certain states which I kinda see not going well.
I get that we shouldn't expect anything to happen immediately and that it'll take time to work out and implement a solution and see results from it, but this isn't a brand new problem, it's something that's been going on for years. What's the point in not even starting?
 

Vragon2.0

Say it with me (Vray-gun)
420
Posts
6
Years
I get that we shouldn't expect anything to happen immediately and that it'll take time to work out and implement a solution and see results from it, but this isn't a brand new problem, it's something that's been going on for years. What's the point in not even starting?

I suppose what I'm getting at is that a set course of action hasn't been settled on a federal level. Think about it, while the US is technically a nation, it still has states and their own devices. So when the federal needs to make a motion on something, it'll affect all the states and be regulatory on all of the states, except for maybe appeal or other things. So yeah, I don't know how long they've sat on it (if at all), but I don't expect anything to happen do to it being exactly that. "The all or nothing", which won't happen since the states are all in their own camps on the matter.

I mean, let me ask you a question for some food for thought, since it'd be good for ideas. What could the government do on a federalist level to help combat this problem, that would work for all the states?
 

CrimsonMajestic

From Dusk to Dawn
152
Posts
5
Years
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45319478

Oh man, when will people say enough is enough?
As soon as individuals realize that mainstream media outlets such as the state-funded BBC you cited love to pump such emotionally-inducing stores such as this in order to generate their ad revenue and/or to spread a political message.

After all, we in Europe doesn't have gun rights and yet we are still free...
And you think it's going to stop there?

Its a freakin` game for god sakes....not worth pulling this muk. So you lost big deal no need to shoot the place up over it.
Indeed, obviously there's more to this than a sore loser going postal. Not to mention how the shooter obtained the weapons, and got passed security...assuming there was any.

On top of this, according to the article, the shooter was on psychotropic medications, and probably in a toxic family environment due to divorce listings that stated the said medications. In addition, this cat could be argued to be anti-social, adding to layers of complexity (or not-so) of this situation.

if you're done with your preachiness and talking to the US as if it's not a collection of states each with their own stances, cultures and thoughts on gun control then perhaps you could actually think about why things are like this and why so many peeps are for/against the second amendment.
I will take this a step bit further, and point out that not everyone is interested into being forced into a quasi-Socialist utopia where one's ability to defend themselves is hindered (even more) by The State (which is coercive in nature, no matter the face it chooses to display).

While Gun Control is ideal for some places.
That's assuming people in "some places" do not have violent tendencies, and/or are absolutely meek before the dictates placed upon them. Another way put, a more aggressively motivated person would most likely not care about said lawls, or see the gun control as a challenge to be hacked.

Not to mention, just 'cause one kook goes and does such a thing doesn't mean he speaks for the entire class.
Indeed, and by legislating such behavior would be like punishing the majority of the population in effect for the actions of a few.

So, if you're going to make a case about why the "backwards US" should get rid of their guns, I suggest you actually make it a case and not some speaking from the heart that nobody cares to hear when such a tragedy has happened and would rather do something to better this result.
AKA, telling large swaths of a given population how to live their lives via platitudes, and not giving any care to how people in different geographic areas choose to live their lives.

Its because the NRA has money (whether they want to admit it or not) and they are in a lot of our governments back pockets. Which is why nothing is really being done despite all of us citizens wanting something done.
While I do agree lobby efforts from such organizations are a problem for individual representation, to say that is the only reason why gun 'control' (which I also refer to as gun centralization, which the lawls will still have guns) is bit removed from reality.

The only bad thing now is because it happened at a video game tournament they will use that as an excuse. How we need to control video games and its the video games themselves that are the reason people do this. Which is a load of muk.
Unfortunately, I do see this as a lowball opportunity for a politician(s) to score brownie points from a certain voter-base---not that any of this is a new.

Something I can say is that the government won't be fast automatically. Now, I'm not saying they are going to do anything, but something important to remember is that in our day and age things are expected to be dealt with as soon as they're done, when not always is there a proper strat made or whatnot.
One should be concerned when a bureaucratic organization such as The State becomes efficient. For example, being able to take individual's ability to defend themselves from any form of aggressors ranging from other individuals to lawls serving as loyal order followers to The State to fulfill political objectives. Another one would be a dictator being able to declare war on the spot---like the political left's favorite obsession with Ronald McDonald Trump for example.

Frankly, I think the federalists can help if they put the research into figuring out the causes for these and proper ways to combat them. Maybe holding county groups accountable to put tax payer money to where it's supposed to go, like schools and other things. Or perhaps to help grant to tutors and people to help support those going through hard mental stress or have shown signs of violent action.
I would say privatize everything, but that may be asking a bit much in this day and age. I don't hold any faith in bureaucrats knowing what's best for anyone's individual situation, let alone being genuinely faithful to their constituents. But hey, I suppose we should appeal to one's degree of stockholm syndrome.

I mean, let me ask you a question for some food for thought, since it'd be good for ideas. What could the government do on a federalist level to help combat this problem, that would work for all the states?
Frankly, I don't think this would be even possible. As has been pointed, there are different cultures within each state (some more similar than others). Within each state, we have different counties that host different lifestyles from their neighbors. I could take this further to the individual level, but I think we get the idea. Thus, in order to appeal to the most individuals, I would say succession movements are the way to go, and let people form their own communities with their own dictates.
 
Last edited:

Miss Wendighost

Satan's Little Princess
709
Posts
7
Years
An article recently revealed that the suspect has had a history of mental health issues, which could've caused him to snap. While I believe that this young man should've gotten help for his issues, the security present should've taken the measures taken at an event such as a sports game with bag searches and whatnot.
 
316
Posts
6
Years
if you're done with your preachiness and talking to the US as if it's not a collection of states each with their own stances, cultures and thoughts on gun control then perhaps you could actually think about why things are like this and why so many peeps are for/against the second amendment.

I've noticed you are very anti-gun (and make sure to emphasize that a lot) and while I disagree with that stance I understand it's your own thoughts on the matter, which is fair. However, picking whatever gun case you have and saying "this is why you all should wake up" doesn't help your argument, not just from coming off as some condescending a**hole, but also that you don't give the reasoning, logic, how it connect, a viable solution and other things that go into this. AKA: you just saying "get better by doing what I am saying" without actually giving a way to do it.

It isn't as easy as snapping your fingers and removing guns and poof you're done. Gimmie makes a better case with gun control, but even then those haven't been settled on and honestly a mess that wouldn't work nationally the same for each state. While Gun Control is ideal for some places, I do think there needs to be an addressing in other areas I think are more involved with this, "aka: youth and why they are like this. Why are these actions being taken and where does it tie in well."

You can take the toy from the child, but that doesn't teach the child how to handle himself now does it?

Not to mention, just 'cause one kook goes and does such a thing doesn't mean he speaks for the entire class. We've had these guns laws close to the same for a long time so it's curious why things are getting how they are now. I think some good look into as to why many of the youth is resorting to this action is better called for than trying to remove an amendment that wouldn't just be getting rid of a right, but also open another big door for government boundaries being laxed.

The simple thing is, a lot of the US doesn't like government with too much power in their lives. Some are fine with it, it's the cons you get with multiculturalism and a bunch of different states. I don't foresee it being repealed however and honestly hope none of them do for what I talked about earlier.

So, if you're going to make a case about why the "backwards US" should get rid of their guns, I suggest you actually make it a case and not some speaking from the heart that nobody cares to hear when such a tragedy has happened and would rather do something to better this result.

Sure, I have had this stance ever since that incident in Las Vegas. The point is, guns aren't necessary for freedom. Sure, values dissonance is at play here as well but if we can get fine without gun rights, USA shouldn't have any problems with that as well. Ok, I guess you can have a gun as long as it's not 'self-defence' related but still... And in case you're wondering, I don't hate Americans, just those who think guns are their end-all be-all solution to their problems...
 
Last edited:
25,439
Posts
11
Years
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.
 
50,218
Posts
13
Years
The more I hear mass shootings like this, the more I think "what is this world coming to?", and the fact this one spawned out of a video game tournament of all things? 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. 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.

This shooting was basically a sore loser going too far. 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.
 
316
Posts
6
Years
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.

Considering the amount of guns USA has already, it's not too surprising you can get guns outside the official channels. Assuming you know how that is.
 

Vragon2.0

Say it with me (Vray-gun)
420
Posts
6
Years
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.

I dunno the details on how, or even if that's released. I don't know the gun laws of Florida by heart, but from what I have looked at it appears they aren't as lax as some other states or as firm as others. Maybe he got it illegally, maybe he got it a long time ago, or hell, even the teller could have not done his job in background checking.


Sure, I have had this stance ever since that incident in Las Vegas. The point is, guns aren't necessary for freedom. Sure, values dissonance is at play here as well but if we can get fine without gun rights, USA shouldn't have any problems with that as well. Ok, I guess you can have a gun as long as it's not 'self-defence' related but still... And in case you're wondering, I don't hate Americans, just those who think guns are their end-all be-all solution to their problems...

okay, so I'm going to try and be direct in the reasoning flaws I'm seeing in you comment.

1) US and (from what I remember Sweden or Norway) aren't the same cultures. People can live oddly differently and have a different viewpoint on it. For example, Japan's culture is vastly different from let's say England's culture. They both have different ideas on things and live in their own ways. Is it perfect, no, but they've become distinct in their living method. Now take one culture (of Sweden) and compare it to 50 states that are all different than each other culturally in some way. I can assure you, if you go to West Virginia and then look at Florida, they'll look very different from each other.

2) Say your government finally decides to not do its job and not act for the people it says it is. How are you going to keep it in check? The reason guns I think have a place as a defensive measure is so it can prevent an incident like that from happening. If it was in the medieval times it'd be swords, in the far future maybe it's other tech. It's to keep up with the times so that when a government becomes corrupt to the point where it no longer is protecting or doing its job, then the governed should be able to deem it as "unfit" and change it. The Government exists for the "Goverened's" benefit, not the other way around. Guns are a means to allow defense to happen if the government does go dictator/no long for its people.

3) The people of US aren't all alike. You keep saying them in a collective like they are, but the US is way more multicultural than Sweden and that contributes to incidents of arguments and disagreements. Not to mention the mental health of the US youth and peeps isn't great and that is where I think the problem lies. Guns are nothing more than tools, that can be used for good and evil. The issue is people are being irresponsible with their guns or are going aggressive with them.

4) No one thinks guns are the "end all be all" to their problems. Anyone who does is a Gun Slut. I don't think everything is solved by guns, just that it solves some things. I don't think you hate Americans, but I think you aren't understanding the cultural difference that exist here from where you are and even here between states. I don't mean that in a harsh manner, but it's important to assess that. I won't say that I understand Swedish culture just like others unless I delve into the culture and how it works, something I don't think you have with the US.

5) Regarding the "self defense" if you're attack by a strong person with a dagger who's bigger than you what's your chances of making out of there? Next to none. Guns were a more "not as physically taxing" weapon for defense/offense. It's merely the next stage of weapons that happens to be easily wielded by everybody.
 
316
Posts
6
Years
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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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

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...
 
Back
Top