nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Shooting in florida

RasTa

Mod warning: Tweet is not for the faint hearted

https://twitter.com/BillyCorben/status/1033780533451530241?s=19

Usual stuff. Video game tourney. Give them more guns

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

It's hardly newsworthy. But if we are to talk about, I guess date and location should be added to the thread title so we know which one is being discussed.

cloudatlas

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Just watched the clip on MSNBC. They beeped out the swears but not the gunshots. That's US priorities for you. Listen to someone die is fine, swearing is a no no.

But... you still clicked on it, surely you knew there was a chance you'd be listening to or seeing something that would be connected to the death of someone?

YFlyer

cloudatlas wrote: »

But... you still clicked on it, surely you knew there was a chance you'd be listening to or seeing something that would be connected to the death of someone?

Obviously. He didn't expect the swear words be muted.

cloudatlas

YFlyer wrote: »

Obviously. He didn't expect the swear words be muted.

of course he had his priorities straight.

YFlyer

cloudatlas wrote: »

of course he had his priorities straight.

Watching Tommy Tierney US standup would let you know how the Yanks roll.

dublinman1990

I shouldn't have listened to that Twitter video with the sound on before I will get to bed soon. Christ almighty; that young shooter is one disturbed f**king lunatic.

The BBC were saying that this stuff was unexpectedly put on a live Twitch stream for all to hear online during the tournament.

It feels like life is so fragile with these scumbags going around the world today increasing further fear while killing more innocent people without fear nor consequence.

R.I.P. to all the victims killed in this tragedy.

Jim Bob Scratcher

Apparently the shooter was a gamer who lost according to the news. I guess video games can kill.

VinLieger

cloudatlas wrote: »

of course he had his priorities straight.

I think you missed the point of the post, they bleeped out swear words but left in the sounds of gunshots and people dying, which would you say is more traumatic or worrying to hear?

Its emblematic of the problem the us has with guns.

Wibbs

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Just watched the clip on MSNBC. They beeped out the swears but not the gunshots. That's US priorities for you. Listen to someone die is fine, swearing is a no no.

As Col. Kurtz said in the flic Apocalypse Now:"We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won’t allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because that’s obscene". That odd cognitive dissonance and crazy contrasts has long been a feature of US culture.

Wibbs

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Christ almighty; that young shooter is one disturbed f**king lunatic.

He's being described as weird, emotionless and nerdy by other competitors. And he had access to firearms. Not a great mix.

Wanderer78

It's gonna be difficult to remove the sociopaths and psychopaths that rule the roast over there, along with their deranged policies, it's a warning for the rest of us.

Wanderer78

Wibbs wrote:

He's being described as weird, emotionless and nerdy by other competitors. And he had access to firearms. Not a great mix.

Sounds like he may have been on the autism spectrum

punisher5112

It seems one can be completely retarded to get a gun in the states and that's the legal way of buying.

Captain Obvious

cloudatlas wrote: »

But... you still clicked on it, surely you knew there was a chance you'd be listening to or seeing something that would be connected to the death of someone?

I think you missed the point. I have no issue with either being shown. I have an issue with choosing to censor the swear words over the sound of people being shot and killed. What's the point in it? Is murder not worse than swearing?

Gwynplaine

'Thoughts and Prayers' obviously don't work.

VinLieger

Gwynplaine wrote: »

'Thoughts and Prayers' obviously don't work.

Not yet but sure the GOP will keep trying, sure what other solution could there be?

steddyeddy

Shooting in America? Are you sure?

Korvanica

Very sad day for the Madden community and the families of the deceased.

Murica gonna Murica i guess. Have the law abiding Gun toting idiots of the USA started blaming video games for this yet?

Gunmonkey

VinLieger wrote: »

Not yet but sure the GOP will keep trying, sure what other solution could there be?

Good guys with guns to shoot the bad guys...except for President Trump, he would have run at him bare-handed if he was there!

As for why they censored the swear words, have to as per broadcast regs. yeah the sounds of people being shot are far worse but there would be one person who writes a complaint over the "potty mouth", so the news service would get fined...just far easier to bleep it out.

VinLieger

Gunmonkey wrote: »

As for why they censored the swear words, have to as per broadcast regs. yeah the sounds of people being shot are far worse but there would be one person who writes a complaint over the "potty mouth", so the news service would get fined...just far easier to bleep it out.

Thats 100% the reason its just absolutely arseways that theres more concern about people hearing swear words than gunshots and people dying

Manic Moran

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Surely someone had a gun on them to shoot back? No?

Unlikely. Firearms are strictly prohibited in the facility unless carried by law enforcement personnel. Apparently the shooter didn't see the signs.

Thats 100% the reason its just absolutely arseways that theres more concern about people hearing swear words than gunshots and people dying

There was a similar case a few years back of a Swiss woman investigated for taking risque selfies of herself in the parliament building. The police released one of the tamer photographs to the media. Swiss media blurred out her face so she could not be identified. American media left the face unblurred, but blurred out the barely visible nipple.

I believe breast feeding in public only became legal in all fifty states last month, because, omergawd, visible breasts.... There are some things that the US really needs to catch up on.

pleas advice

Manic Moran wrote: »

There was a similar case a few years back of a Swiss woman ...

For the sake of Privacy Let's call her Lisa S... No That's too Obvious, let's say L. Simpson.

Gwynplaine wrote: »

'Thoughts and Prayers' obviously don't work.

maybe we should start praying to Allah...

Cookie_Monster

Manic Moran wrote: »

There are some things that the US really needs to catch up on.

Oh the irony... but I suppose gun ownership / availability is not one of them?

Manic Moran

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Oh the irony... but I suppose gun ownership / availability is not one of them?

Could do with a little tightening, but I'm OK with the general principle given the realities on the ground. There are positive uses to firearms. I'm at a bit of a loss to think of any significant positive benefits to banning public breast feeding.

Captain Obvious

Manic Moran wrote: »

Could do with a little tightening, but I'm OK with the general principle given the realities on the ground. There are positive uses to firearms. I'm at a bit of a loss to think of any significant positive benefits to banning public breast feeding.

There are positive uses to firearms. I'm not sure anyone would disagree. But the negative results of such prolific gun ownership and liberal laws would seem to far outweigh the positive. There's 19 children a day injured by firearms in America. "Could do with a little tightening" seems a bit tame does it not?

Wanderer78

Captain Obvious wrote:

There are positive uses to firearms. I'm not sure anyone would disagree. But the negative results of such prolific gun ownership and liberal laws would seem to far outweigh the positive. There's 19 children a day injured by firearms in America. "Could do with a little tightening" seems a bit tame does it not?

Wasting your time I'm afraid, the pro gun lobbyists are ruling the roast over there, it's an unresolveable issue in that country, it's just best we all learn from the dangers of such movements, and prevent them from occurring within our own

Manic Moran

Captain Obvious wrote: »

There are positive uses to firearms. I'm not sure anyone would disagree. But the negative results of such prolific gun ownership and liberal laws would seem to far outweigh the positive. There's 19 children a day injured by firearms in America. "Could do with a little tightening" seems a bit tame does it not?

Nobody has as yet come up with a less tame solution which has a possibility of working. Magic hand-waving away of a quarter-billion untraceable firearms, with more being added every day as it becomes easier to make them is not a viable policy, even before the likelihood of a legal change which would allow it in the first place is considered.

If a location like the GLHF bar (or my office) is going to declare itself a gun-free zone, then enforce it. They are private entities, they are permitted to do so. Instead, they just put up a sign and hope that someone who is unhinged enough to commence a spree shooting will obey it. And it keeps happening that way. What's easier, ban access to firearms across the country, or do a search at the door? I was at an event in the UK in June, all 20,000 folks entering were wanded and bags checked. It's not that hard. If you don't want to enforce it, then assume that someone will be armed regardless of what your signage says. We have ample evidence by now to support such a presumption.

Of those 19 children a day, a wonderfully emotive description, about 2/3 were intentional assaults, overwhelmingly black. The problem with just throwing out 'children' is that it includes gang members in Chicago, DC, or New Orleans of an age who know better deliberately shooting each other, usually with illegally held firearms. That's not a gun problem which can be addressed, that's a social problem which needs to be addressed regardless. The rest, the 38% of deaths which were suicides, the 6% which were accidents, can be quite easily addressed with less intrusive regulation, education, and downright caring for other people.

Taytoland

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Who cares at this point.

Friends and family of the deceased. People in the gaming community. Common decent people.

Why the big thread as if it's a big story when we all know it's not because it happens so often and that the US does nothing about it. You can't expect people to get so emotional over something which the US inflict on themselves with the gun laws they have.

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Who cares at this point.

I know one person who would have cared.

A legendary former poster called KeithAFC.

Sadly he's no longer with us, but his spirit briefly lived on through another poster Patrick_Cleburne, who is also no longer with us.

Thankfully you are here to remind us of these fallen legends.

Sorry I'm not following what you mean by this?

Taytoland

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Who cares at this point.

Friends and family of the deceased. People in the gaming community. Common decent people.

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Who cares at this point.

I know one person who would have cared.

A legendary former poster called KeithAFC.

Sadly he's no longer with us, but his spirit briefly lived on through another poster Patrick_Cleburne, who is also no longer with us.

Thankfully you are here to remind us of these fallen legends.

Sorry I'm not following what you mean by this?

Captain Obvious

Manic Moran wrote: »

Nobody has as yet come up with a less tame solution which has a possibility of working. Magic hand-waving away of a quarter-billion untraceable firearms, with more being added every day as it becomes easier to make them is not a viable policy, even before the likelihood of a legal change which would allow it in the first place is considered.

Most of the first world has come up with a solution. Australia introduced it after a massacre. There was no magic involved. I'll leave you with a question put by Toby Ziegler that I've yet to hear an answer to.

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

Manic Moran wrote: »

If a location like the GLHF bar (or my office) is going to declare itself a gun-free zone, then enforce it. They are private entities, they are permitted to do so. Instead, they just put up a sign and hope that someone who is unhinged enough to commence a spree shooting will obey it. And it keeps happening that way. What's easier, ban access to firearms across the country, or do a search at the door? I was at an event in the UK in June, all 20,000 folks entering were wanded and bags checked. It's not that hard. If you don't want to enforce it, then assume that someone will be armed regardless of what your signage says. We have ample evidence by now to support such a presumption.

What has a sign got do do with anything? If the sign were replaced by a law it still wouldn't affect someone who had the intent of a mass shooting. The solution is to make it harder for them to get weapons in the first place. You do that with gun control. What do you think would have happened in the UK if one of those 20,000 had a weapon and wanted to kill people? You think a security guard with a wand would have foiled their plan or would they simply have started by shooting him? Nobody is arguing that a ban on possession in a particular location will stop someone like this from deciding to do what they did out of a fear of the law. That's not the purpose of such a law or rule.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of those 19 children a day, a wonderfully emotive description, about 2/3 were intentional assaults, overwhelmingly black. The problem with just throwing out 'children' is that it includes gang members in Chicago, DC, or New Orleans of an age who know better deliberately shooting each other, usually with illegally held firearms.

You can try and downplay the number all you want, it doesn't change it.

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's not a gun problem which can be addressed, that's a social problem which needs to be addressed regardless. The rest, the 38% of deaths which were suicides, the 6% which were accidents, can be quite easily addressed with less intrusive regulation, education, and downright caring for other people.

It is a gun control problem though. Do you not think in a society that is flooded with guns and has such lax gun control laws it is easier to obtain a firearm illegally?