Today, a Madden NFL 19 gaming tournament took place in Jacksonville Florda. Sadly, it appears a shooting occurred at the event, leading to four currently confirmed deaths. One of the competitors, Drini Gjoka claimed that they fled the area, and was grazed by a bullet while the shooter was active. Jacksonville's Police Department have stated that a shooting did happen, but have not explained any further details at this time, while also telling citizens to stay away from The Landing, where the tragedy took place. The tournament was a qualifier event, which was officially backed by EA Sports. At the time of writing, there are a total of 11 victims. A potential suspect was found dead at the scene.

Source: Twitter

Source 2: Twitter

Source 3: Local News Outlet

 

[Noctosphere]

why not require people to carry guns? I know if i was in a place getting shot at, and if i had a gun, I would gladly shoot the active shooter in the noggin. I sure as hell dont want to live in fear.

Then, police comes in the room, sees you shooting someone, then they shoot you

 

[bitjacker]

There would be a 15 minute window.

 

[The Catboy]

This fact alone is just confusing to me. If the government was interested in saving lives, you would think they'd restrict access to weapons that statistically cause the most deaths, meaning handguns. Rifles are not the weapon of choice for mass shooters, automatic or semi-automatic - the most commonly used weapon in such instances is a handgun, provided we accept the current ludicrous definition of a mass shooting, which I obviously don't.
That's always the excuse. Tell me one thing, if the proponents of gun regulation are so interested in reducing the death toll, why are they racing to ban "assault weapons", which is a trumped-up term they invented as no actual assault rifles can be legally sold to citizens in the United States as there's a blanket ban on automatics across the land? Semi-automatic rifles are not particularly deadly if you look at the data - they're used in the great minority of crimes, the most common weapon of choice is the handgun due to its portability and ease of concealment. Why are they sounding the alarm about the AR-15? Because looking at the numbers, all I can think of is "it looks kinda scary", which isn't an argument. All I keep hearing about is "we need to change the gun laws", but I'm not hearing any concrete solutions. You want to talk, let's talk then - what do you propose? How would you solve this conundrum? As far as I'm concerned, guns aren't even the issue - as I mentioned before, it's poverty, crime and mental health. There doesn't seem to be any discernable correlation between how strict or lax the regulations are and how likely it is that a mass shooting will occur in a given state, so there necessarily must be a different solution, but what? Anything short of mass confiscation would be ineffective, and mass confiscation is unacceptable and unpalatable to freedom, so what would you like to do?

I purpose we get on the same level as the rest of the world. It's suspicious that mental health issues exist in the rest of the world, same with poverty. Yet you don't hear about this shit happening anywhere else. This is exclusively an issue in the US.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

Been reading news on Bing which are random but a lot end up on being about articles of shootings. Banning guns wouldn't really do any good because if anyone wants a gun, he/she can buy it illegally, anyway.

Shootings in Chicago happen a lot from what I've read but no one seems to care.

UK can't ban knives because it's a kitchen utility otherwise they'd try.

Don't forget cars too which can be used as a weapon but is it going to get banned? Nope.

If guns do get banned, it's to strip citizens of their right for self-protection.

Anything can be a weapon, when you think about it, anyhow.

RIP.

 

[Noctosphere]

I purpose we get on the same level as the rest of the world. It's suspicious that mental health issues exist in the rest of the world, same with poverty. Yet you don't hear about this shit happening anywhere else. This is exclusively an issue in the US.

Actually, it happens everyday in middle eastern
Its just that we care less about it happening in usa lol

 

[The Catboy]

Actually, it happens everyday in middle eastern
Its just that we care less about it happening in usa lol

Having to compare the US to war-torn nations is just sad

 

[Noctosphere]

Having to compare the US to war-torn nations is just sad

Its sad to say, but wwiii is here
Its just that the ennemies arent country but terrorist
Terrorists and their followers

 

[Priestiality]

Just because people can open carry and even have their weapons on them at the time doesn't mean that the shooter will be shot or even caught, especially if you do so in a crowded area with lot of people.

Even if they do start opening fire on the suspect what about bystanders?
What about someone who isn't fully trained with their firearms?

Arming people could quite potentially turn a bad situation into a worse one easily, especially among the chaos of a situation like that.

I am not saying that responsible people should have their guns or their right to own guns taken away, but something does actually need to be done about the issues we are seeing with gun violence in the US.

Cops have already said arming teachers is a dumb idea because a cop isn't going to stop and question the person holding a gun in an active school shooting situation, they're going to shoot that person unless they immediately drop the gun and lay on the ground before the cop gets a bead on them.

 

[RealLatias]

Sad News to see this coming to my community, I send best of wishes to all those involved. I live in Jacksonville, FL.

 

[SirNapkin1334]

Sad news, it seems the US is no longer a safe place. I wonder what's wrong with their society that the mass shootings are more and more common every day.

Because trump doesn’t give a shit about gun laws. How many shootings are there a year in Germany? It’s a place I’m looking to escape to.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

why not require people to carry guns? I know if i was in a place getting shot at, and if i had a gun, I would gladly shoot the active shooter in the noggin. I sure as hell dont want to live in fear.

I want you to think REALLY hard about what happens in a crowd panic mentality where multiple people (God forbid EVERYONE) have a handgun

Person A draws their weapon and fires
Person B immediately draws their weapon in response with the noble intention of neutralizing Person A
Persons C on, who may not have known where the initial shot came from, draw their weapons and aim them at the nearest person who had their gun up before them and is shooting

See how this might get problematic very quickly?...

 

[Noctosphere]

I want you to think REALLY hard about what happens in a crowd panic mentality where multiple people (God forbid EVERYONE) have a handgun

Person A draws their weapon and fires
Person B immediately draws their weapon in response with the noble intention of neutralizing Person A
Persons C on, who may not have known where the initial shot came from, draw their weapons and aim them at the nearest person who had their gun up before them and is shooting

See how this might get problematic very quickly?...

This

 

[Foxi4]

Why are you so eager to focus on "shall not be infringed" while ignoring "well-regulated militia"?

Because I'm an English major and I know how the grammatical structure of the Second Amendment works. The construction used, although archaic by modern standards, is important for the preservation of its actual meaning.

The Second Amendment is composed of two clauses which are not of equal weight - one is subordinate to the other. If you were to re-create it in a more modern form, the spirit of the writing is quite clear. A "well-regulated militia" is an organised group of armed citizens and its existence is "necessary for the security of a free state". As such, the "right of the people" to "keep and bear arms" shall "not be infringed" as doing otherwise would *prevent* "the people" from forming militias in the first place. The right to bear arms is granted de facto.

The first part of the Second Amendment is a nominative absolute - "the right [...] to bear arms [...] shall not be infringed" and "here's why" is how you should think about it. This interpretation is supported by contemporary writing, most notably the Federalist Papers, particularly Federalist no. 46 by Madison:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Here we learn that "the American people" are an armed populace, which is an advantage compared to other nations, and it is of utmost importance that they remain armed to ensure that the government remains subordinate to the people. Of those armed people some, not all, can be appointed to militias, and if you read the full paper you'll also learn that the militias were meant to be of considerable size in order to stand a chance should the federal government become tyrannical. You don't have to be a scribe to understand that this was the intent all along and that's the actual meaning of the Amendment. There is no *other* interpretation of the Second Amendment, there's only lack of understanding or gaps in knowledge that people fill in with imaginary intentions that are not in the document at all.

 

[Noctosphere]

Because I'm an English major and I know how the grammatical structure of the Second Ammendment works. The construction used, although archaic by modern standards, is important for the preservation of its actual meaning.

The Second Ammendment is composed of two clauses which are not of equal weight - one is subordinate to the other. If you were to re-create it in a more modern form, the spirit of the writing is quite clear. A "well-regulated militia" is an organised group of armed citizens and its existence is "necessary for the security of a free state". As such, the "right of the people" to "keep and bear arms" shall "not be infringed" as doing otherwise would *prevent* "the people" from forming militias in the first place. The right to bear arms is granted de facto.

The first part of the Second Ammendment is a nominative absolute - "the right [...] to bear arms [...] shall not be infringed" and here's why is how you should think about it. This interpretation is supported by contemporary writing, particularly the Federalist Papers, particularly Federalist no. 46 by Madison:


Here we learn that "the American people" are an armed populace, which is an advantage compared to other nations, and it is of utmost importance that they remain armed to ensure that the government remains subordinate to the people. Of those armed people some, not all, can be appointed to militias, and if you read the full paper you'll also learn that the militias were meant to be of considerable size in order to stand a chance should the federal government become tyrannical. There is no *other* interpretation of the Second Ammendment, there's only lack of understanding or gaps in knowledge that people fill in with imaginary intentions that are not in the document at all.

Well, maybe you could tell me the purpose of a well armed militia?
I mean, what do they do exactly?
What, when, how?

 

[Foxi4]

I purpose we get on the same level as the rest of the world. It's suspicious that mental health issues exist in the rest of the world, same with poverty. Yet you don't hear about this shit happening anywhere else. This is exclusively an issue in the US.

I'm not saying that the fact that people get shot is not in part because they have access to guns - it is. Without guns there would be no shootings, without cars there would be no road accidents, what of it? The problem here is the black market which will never wholly be eliminated and the cost in freedom which in my estimation is just too great to bear. By saying that the United States should "get on the same level with the rest of the world" you're effectively advocating for a blanket ban on firearms, which I knew was your intention from the start and which you vehemently denied. All I wanted was for you to admit that and say it out loud instead of pulling wool over people's eyes as if that wasn't at all what you meant and that you had a magical law that wouldn't ostensibly limit their freedom. It's the lying that I don't like, not your sentiment - we can't have a discussion if you plan on being dishonest or refuse to acknowledge what you actually want.

Well, maybe you could tell me the purpose of a well armed militia?
I mean, what do they do exactly?
What, when, how?

Ideally they don't do anything at all if they don't have to. They exist as one of many cogs in the checks and balances system. More specifically they're an ace in the sleeve against the very real possibility of a rise of a tyrannical government.

 

[aerios169]

damn guys, i am so sorry =/ ... donald Trump talks trash about Mexico but if you dont do any bad things you are akind oF safe menwhile in USA someone gets creazy and kill you

 

[Delerious]

I purpose we get on the same level as the rest of the world. It's suspicious that mental health issues exist in the rest of the world, same with poverty. Yet you don't hear about this shit happening anywhere else. This is exclusively an issue in the US.

No, you just have people stabbing each other at random in the UK. Hence why they banned knives over there, and guess what... people are still stabbing each other over there.

 

[Noctosphere]

Maybe someone can tell me why they sell fully automitic weapon to public?
Because obviously, it isnt the problem here
When you know that a 10 years old girl killed her instructor with a uzi when she was in a shooting stand

 

[Foxi4]

Maybe someone can tell me why they sell fully automitic weapon to public?
Because obviously, it isnt the problem here
When you know that a 10 years old girl killed her instructor with a uzi when she was in a shooting stand

I will PayPal you the full price of the weapon plus $100 if you purchase a fully automatic weapon in the United States. It's literally illegal to sell automatics in the states. The only entities allowed to own them are the police and the military, private citizens must have a permit from the ATF in order to own them, let alone purchase them, so good luck. What you're not accounting for is that criminals and crazy people don't follow the law, so any form of excessive regulation only affects law-abiding citizens.

 

[Xzi]

Sad to hear. Unfortunately it seems like, in a twisted sort of way, a guy shooting up a gaming tournament because he lost a match of Madden is peak America now.