Mass shooting at Jacksonville Landing

[Snaketoz]

I would definitely argue that it has been infringed upon, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer so I can't say with any level of certainty.

We have the right to keep and bear arms
-except in gun free zones
-except in bars
-except in airports
-except in sporting events
-except fully-automatic weapons
-except in certain states/cities/towns
-except in voting places
-except in government offices
-etc...

Apparently we've taken a lot of "steps in the right direction" so far, and yet we still experience shootings...

I make my point again that additional laws don't necessarily make for a safer society, as has been shown in certain cases throughout history. To ask a question and then drop the topic, what law would have prevented THIS killer from obtaining a weapon? What could have predicted he would act in such a way? To me, it seems there was no way of knowing categorically beforehand, making legislation against such an attacker impossible or ineffective.

The "right to bear arms" has been completely distorted since it's inclusion in the Bill of Rights in the 1700s.  Only if you are a member of a militia and had your flintlock confiscated has your "right" to bear arms been infringed.  The second amendment was thought to have been written to allow states to organize militias due to the lack of standing military.  One of the reasons was to put down slave rebellions, events such as the Whisky Rebellion, etc. This was a different time and different circumstances.
That being said, the Founding Fathers seemed to think that guns and militia service were good for character building. They certainly didn't want to ban them. On the contrary, gun ownership and militia membership were required. The Militia Act of 1792 stated:
"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."
  Nowhere in the 2nd amendment are AR 15s, AK 47s, large clips, printed & untraceable pistols, armor piercing rounds, or any modern sensible laws for today mentioned. 

[Tacachale]

jax_hwy_engineer, if can I assume your screen name is somewhat biographical, do you favor getting the "government intrusion" and "nanny state" out of the engineering and construction professions?  Anyone with a straight-edge can hang out a shingle as a "Structures Engineer" and go about designing bridges?  Anyone with a shovel as a highway or bridge contractor?  There are legitimate reasons for the people, as the government, to enact regulations to protect the safety of the public.  The question is to rationally discuss 'how much' regulation is appropriate, to balance freedom with responsibility and safety.

I completely understand your argument, and don't necessarily think it refutes mine. As you may note I mentioned that additional regulation doesn't NECESSARILY mean a positive impact on the safety of the general populous. Building codes are one thing, and have had measurable and direct impacts on the safety of private and public works projects. Some gun regulations may have had some measurable impact on the safety of people at large, and some have fallen flat.

I agree that a rational discussion is necessary (even though we don't make the decisions in government anyhow, legislators will do as they will regardless of the general opinion) which is why I asked what specific criteria would have disallowed this man to own a gun? What law could have prevented this, much less categorically prevented any mass shooting? As I stated, he was likely breaking 3 laws just by possessing the weapon in that venue, much less all the laws he broke discharging it and ultimately committing murder, which could be said to show the failure of gun legislation already in place.

To take it to your point about "any old schmoe with a shovel can build a bridge" (which I will say is a bit facetious and dismissive of my arguments thus far, but I understand the hyperbole and the point you're trying to make). The solution to that problem is to require licensing and education in order to safely practice a skill. Would the application of that logic to be that any person who wants to buy a gun must become a licensed weapons holder, taking a course and an aptitude test in order to own a weapon? That sounds OK to me, I'd like to think that I would pass a course on gun safety with flying colors and be allowed to carry and own much as I do today. Is that the course of action that is discussed or implemented? Mostly no, the standard talking point is to BAN THE GUNS from certain places or BAN THIS SPECIFIC TYPE OF GUN. Is that effective? Is it in any way similar to the practice of licensing or codified engineering/construction methods?

j_h_e, thanks for your reasoned response.  The NRA consistently opposes basic registration requirements (who owns which guns).  I am certain they would oppose requirements for showing competency in the safety and use of guns.  Since they bankroll enough legislators, at the state and federal levels, to prevent such laws from happening.  So, your point about legislators not doing what the voters want is correct.

We don't really know much yet about the killer, his motive, how he got the weapon, etc. So it's too early to say what if anything might have prevented the tragedy.

[Tacachale]

I wonder if this tragedy might be the spur to get Curry and Sleiman to sit down and put aside grievances and craft a future strategy for the Landing. 

The more likely, more depressing alternative is that the shooting gets politicized by both sides. Sleiman's lawsuit against the city alleges that they fail to provide proper security, among other things, at the Landing. And Curry wants to tear down the Landing because he thinks its blighted. Hope I'm wrong, but I could see both sides using the shooting as justification that they are "right" about the Landing's problems.

That sounds accurate.

[DrQue]

Thankfully we have the right to defend ourselves from maniacs with easy access to weapons of war. Just use precautions like the following:

Taking the kids downtown? Pocket pistol!
Going for a run on the River Walk? Strap one to your waist
Cyclists? Slide a compact under your Lycra
Boating to the Landing? Keep your flare gun out as you approach
If you intend on drinking, just make sure you don't consume too much. Tipsy patrons wielding firearms around homicidal maniacs and responding LEOs might cause problems.

In all seriousness, an armed populace is not the answer to this problem. Outside of a very select few, most gun owners lack the training, awareness, and experience to effectively take down an active shooter. As we saw yesterday. a shooter with a semi-automatic hand gun can end many lives in just a few seconds. As bad as it was, it could have been much worse.

[Tacachale]

The Baltimore Sun reports that Katz suffered from "emotional and social struggles" and was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment at one time. He used two guns in the shooting, and had purchased them legally in the Baltimore area.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-jacksonville-david-katz-08272018-story.html

[Kiva]

Also, under federal law, gun buyers are required to inform a seller if they have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. According to the news, the shooter had twice been hospitalized for mental health issues. So how well did the voluntary "inform a seller" work? How about having a nationwide database? Oh, sorry the NRA is against that! https://www.news4jax.com/news/records-landing-gunman-twice-hospitalized-for-mental-health

[bill]

along with hippa

[BridgeTroll]

Some strong opinions here... hope everyone got out and voted...  Polls are open until 7pm...

[Tacachale]

Morgan & Morgan announces lawsuit for Jacksonville Landing victim

By Eileen Kelley

Posted at 11:58 AM
Updated at 11:58 AM

The first lawsuit is being filed in the wake of the mass shooting that killed three people including the suspected gunman and injured about a dozen others during a Madden NFL 19 tournament Sunday at The Jacksonville Landing.

Morgan & Morgan attorneys Matt Morgan, Tim Moran and James Young have been retained by a victim who was shot twice, the law firm announced Tuesday morning during a news conference.



...

http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180828/morgan-amp-morgan-announces-lawsuit-for-jacksonville-landing-victim

[thelakelander]

For those who are tired of the paywalls: https://www.news4jax.com/news/1st-lawsuit-in-jacksonville-landing-shooting-to-be-filed

[KenFSU]

For those who are tired of the paywalls: https://www.news4jax.com/news/1st-lawsuit-in-jacksonville-landing-shooting-to-be-filed

Curry vs. Sleiman vs. Morgan & Morgan.

Should be whatever the opposite of fun is.

P.S. ProTip -> Open JBJ and Jacksonville.com links in private/incognito browsing windows to get around the paywalls.

Support quality journalism as well obviously, but the Times-Union group are out of their minds being so spastic and non-communicative while charging more than the New York Times.

[thelakelander]

Yes, I don't mind supporting quality journalism. Just not so supportive of paying for basic news that can be found for free elsewhere. At that point, I feel like I'm being taken advantage of.

[Kerry]

How about this a starting point.  Anyone with a medical marijuana card, self-identify as a recreational user, or has neen arrested for possession (even if charges are dropped) or lives in a house with anyone that meets these 3 scenarios are barred from not only buying a gun, but must turn in any existing guns.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/scientists-discover-genetic-link-between-13151184

[Snufflee]

How about this a starting point.  Anyone with a medical marijuana card, self-identify as a recreational user, or has neen arrested for possession (even if charges are dropped) or lives in a house with anyone that meets these 3 scenarios are barred from not only buying a gun, but must turn in any existing guns.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/scientists-discover-genetic-link-between-13151184

The researchers used an analysis technique called "Mendelian randomisation" to show a causal relationship between schizophrenia and an increased risk of cannabis use.

I think you misread the article, so how about no.

How about we change the nature of political and economic systems that drives these behaviors.  How about we recognize that mental health issues are real and begin to apply the same research vigor toward mental health that we do toward cancer.. Ohh we wont cause we cant derive profit from understanding why the brain goes haywire. So we politicize, send thoughts and prayers (laughable) then move on to ridiculous proclamations that health care is not a right, its too expensive, list 10 other lame excuses and wait patiently for the next mass shooting.

[KenFSU]

Yes, I don't mind supporting quality journalism. Just not so supportive of paying for basic news that can be found for free elsewhere. At that point, I feel like I'm being taken advantage of.

On top of that, there's also the ethical question as to whether information - particularly local information about things like elections, violence, safety, storms, etc - should be partitioned off from the lower classes. Clearly doesn't apply to things like restaurant reviews and sports commentary, but when there's an active shooting going on, or polls are about to open, or a hurricane is bearing down, it'd be a pretty shitty civic move to pay wall that coverage.