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]

@Chary maybe you can tell me what's going on
But when I did research about this shooting this afternoon, I saw some report of shooting dating from august 25th
it was for a same event and at same place
It was reported one dead and 2 wounded iirc

 

[TotalInsanity4]

David Katz, Jewish. The term "white" has already been scrubbed from the headline on Daily Mail.

Jesus Christ just leave

And where on Earth are you seeing either of those things

 

[Limp-Bones]

Seems like we all need some meteor to solve our problems and just start over again lol

 

[SonowRaevius]

My thoughts on this

"Oh, another one" and then I continue on with life.

I doesn't mean that I don't empathize with those that lost someone they love today, but when you hear about another shooting every week you sort of start to at least become numb to the news of them a bit and that is probably the saddest thing about the whole ordeal.

 

[Limp-Bones]

My thoughts on this

"Oh, another one" and then I continue on with life.

I doesn't mean that I don't empathize with those that lost someone they love today, but when you hear about another shooting every week you sort of start to at least become numb to the news of them a bit and that is probably the saddest thing about the whole ordeal.

Yeah I know what you mean.. It's like every time I turn on the TV its like this...

 

[snails1221]

My thoughts on this

"Oh, another one" and then I continue on with life.

I doesn't mean that I don't empathize with those that lost someone they love today, but when you hear about another shooting every week you sort of start to at least become numb to the news of them a bit and that is probably the saddest thing about the whole ordeal.

As sad as it is to say, this tbh

 

[Noctosphere]

My thoughts on this

"Oh, another one" and then I continue on with life.

I doesn't mean that I don't empathize with those that lost someone they love today, but when you hear about another shooting every week you sort of start to at least become numb to the news of them a bit and that is probably the saddest thing about the whole ordeal.

I totally understand how you feel
When you start thinking there are more shooting in usa than in middle-eastern

 

[Glyptofane]

Jesus Christ just leave

And where on Earth are you seeing either of those things

What are you talking about? I already said it was from Daily Mail and you are the one who mentioned race. I saw the headline hours ago when they were framing it as a "white" shooter and the surname Katz is not of mysterious origin. Everyone knows this.

 

[Noctosphere]

when you feel bad for those arabian in Iraq who die in shooting but no longer give a fuck about american dying in shooting

 

[spotanjo3]

I have to go to Florida for a work trip in November... Man, I have never wanted to go there and still don't.

I lived in Florida for 9 years. Saw the news for 9 years everyday shooting everywhere in Florida. I am glad that I moved back to somewhere last October. No more Florida for me for a several reasons. The gun is not the reason that I left, mind you.

 

[Foxi4]

So when is ok to talk about gun control? It's always "too soon," then another one happens, then it's "too soon" again. These issues that only exist in the US won't fix themselves if we keep saying that "it's too soon."
Gun regulations do not violate the Second Amendment. The 2ND protects people from full gun bans and from the government coming to your house and taking your guns. It does not mean that there can't be a bans on the sale of select guns, it does mean that there can't be deeper background checks, it does mean freedom from regulation. Our system is the problem and there needs to be something done, something that apparently the rest of the world has already figured out.

To what end? There are approximately 300 million guns in private hands in America that are not being used in a mass shooting. More than one-third of the population is armed. Why are you so eager to infringe upon their right to bear arms? Because of the occasional psychopath? I don't buy it. "Certain guns" are already restricted in America, what exactly do you want to restrict? "Assault weapons"? Meaning what? It's curious that cities with the strictest gun laws like Chicago have the highest "mass shooting" rates, it's almost as if it wasn't the guns that were the problem but poverty, crime and mental illness. I see no reason why a law-abiding citizen healthy in mind and body shouldn't be armed, and as far as I'm concerned every single willing adult should at least be familiar with firearms. Shall not be infringed, that is all. It's not really up to debate or discussion - freedom is always one generation away from extinction.

 

[frankGT]

Fkin mericans and they'r fkin guns.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

What are you talking about? I already said it was from Daily Mail and you are the one who mentioned race. I saw the headline hours ago when they were framing it as a "white" shooter and the surname Katz is not of mysterious origin. Everyone knows this.

I didn't see Daily Mail, I'm not sure if it was my eyes decieving me or if you revised your post, but I saw "from all the headlines." And yeah. "Katz" is a conjugated form of "Katzen" in German, which means "cat."

And to address me bringing up race: I was making a dark and somber joke about reality, and one that I believe the person I quoted was also making. If the shooter is brown, he's "a lone wolf terrorist" and "most likely illegal." If he's white, he's "mentally ill." And, as you have proved with all the grace of walking face-first into a pole: if neo-nazis think he's Jewish, then he can't be white and is by definition Satan incarnate

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Why are you so eager to infringe upon their right to bear arms? Because of the occasional psychopath? I don't buy it.

Wait, hold on... Do you think that there's some sort of boogyman conspiracy that anti-gun liberals are all in on, rather than just wanting to reduce a rather significant fatality rate?...

 

[The Catboy]

To what end? There are approximately 300 million guns in private hands in America that are not being used in a mass shooting. More than one-third of the population is armed. Why are you so eager to infringe upon their right to bear arms? Because of the occasional psychopath? I don't buy it. "Certain guns" are already restricted in America, what exactly do you want to restrict? "Assault weapons"? Meaning what? It's curious that cities with the strictest gun laws like Chicago have the highest "mass shooting" rates, it's almost as if it wasn't the guns that were the problem but poverty, crime and mental illness. I see no reason why a law-abiding citizen healthy in mind and body shouldn't be armed, and as far as I'm concerned every single willing adult should at least be familiar with firearms. Shall not be infringed, that is all. It's not really up to debate or discussion - freedom is always one generation away from extinction.

I didn't suggest taking anyone's guns away nor did I suggest any of that. I stated that banning the sale of some guns isn't a violation of the 2nd, that doesn't mean taking people's guns. I suggested that better testing could help filter out people who are mentally unstable, which isn't a violation of the 2ND. If someone is a perfectly healthy and of sound mind, then these regulations only mildly inconvenience them.

 

[weatMod]

still not the worst thing EA is responsible for

 

[bitjacker]

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.

 

[weatMod]

>Florida

 

[Foxi4]

Automatic weapons aren't for sale to anyone in the civilian class
Cops and Military have access to those
Any automatic weapons on the street are ill gotten goods.

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.

I didn't suggest taking anyone's guns away nor did I suggest any of that. I stated that banning the sale of some guns isn't a violation of the 2nd, that doesn't mean taking people's guns. I suggested that better testing could help filter out people who are mentally unstable, which isn't a violation of the 2ND. If someone is a perfectly healthy and of sound mind, then these regulations only mildly inconvenience them.

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?

 

[Priestiality]

To what end? There are approximately 300 million guns in private hands in America that are not being used in a mass shooting. More than one-third of the population is armed. Why are you so eager to infringe upon their right to bear arms? Because of the occasional psychopath? I don't buy it. "Certain guns" are already restricted in America, what exactly do you want to restrict? "Assault weapons"? Meaning what? It's curious that cities with the strictest gun laws like Chicago have the highest "mass shooting" rates, it's almost as if it wasn't the guns that were the problem but poverty, crime and mental illness. I see no reason why a law-abiding citizen healthy in mind and body shouldn't be armed, and as far as I'm concerned every single willing adult should at least be familiar with firearms. Shall not be infringed, that is all. It's not really up to debate or discussion - freedom is always one generation away from extinction.

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

 

[SonowRaevius]

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.

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.