Jacksonville shooting suspect underwent psychiatric treatment, purchased guns legally in Baltimore a

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Baltimore Sun

Jacksonville shooting suspect underwent psychiatric treatment, purchased guns legally in Baltimore area
Hallie Miller and Talia Richman
The Baltimore Sun
August 27, 2018 4:15 PM

Details are starting to emerge about the life of a Maryland man who police said opened fire at a video game competition in Jacksonville, Fla., Sunday.

Authorities have identified 24-year-old David Katz of Columbia as the person who shot and killed two and injured 10 others before taking his own life during a tournament for the Madden football video-game franchise. Elijah Clayton, a 22-year-old football star from California, and Taylor Robertson, a 28-year-old from West Virginia, were killed in the shooting.

Jacksonville Sheriff Mike Williams said at a news conference Monday afternoon that investigators have not yet determined a motive.

He said Katz recently purchased two handguns used in the shooting legally from a licensed dealer in the Baltimore area.

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

---

[oberliner]

1. Wish we didn't have to see his name and his picture so often

[marble falls]

2. I'll bite. Why? Ignore it and maybe it'll go away? And let the RW take control of the narrative?

[oberliner]

4. A Way To Stop Mass Shootings: Stop Naming The Shooters

One group of academics and law enforcement officials has a suggestion beyond gun control and mental health that they say could prevent the “contagion” effect and deny mass killers the attention some of them seek: They’re asking the media to stop using the shooters’ names or pictures.

“What we’re asking for is a pretty small change that could have big benefits,” said Adam Lankford, an associate professor in criminology at the University of Alabama.

http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2017/11/06/a-way-to-stop-mass-killers-stop-naming-them

[marble falls]

9. Well as along as an anomymous group of alleged "experts" say that. So your thought is a free ...

press is at fault, that mass murder never occurs where there is no free press?

This is a white kid with mental problems who legally bought a firearm. I think we need to post his photo and name to disabuse people of the commonly held misconception that these shooters are non white, non American with diagnosed or untreated mental problems and using illegally obtained fire arms.

The problem isn't ID'ing criminals, after all you don't think sex assault would drop if we quit ID'ing sexual preditors, do you? The problem is guns and their open availability even to former mental patients. I find it odd that anyone thinks that a mentally ill person is more interested in notoriety than getting even with society. Maybe we should stop reporting mass shootings.These stories probably inspires these outrages a lot more than a name and a mugshot.

How about this scenario, "I can't make attention with a shooting, I think I'll build a bomb - lets see if they can try to make me any more anonymous than I am right now.

[oberliner]

12. Seemed like they made some convincing points

My personal view is I prefer not to help publicize the shooter for some of the reasons that are presented in that article.

Your perspective makes sense also. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on the subject.

[Judi Lynn]

11. I had not seen his name before today, or his photo, which I looked up.

I did that because I'm interested in studying what kinds of expressions and personality show on these dirtbags' faces. I believe one actually can see all kinds of defects and ugliness in facial appearances which confirm lack of empathy, or a sense connectedness, their consuming self-centeredness, hostility, treachery, conceit, contempt, etc. You can also determine those things in writings. No way to hide it, although people living in malevolence toward others often insist there's no way at all to detect personality disasters from merely seeing photos, etc.

[oberliner]

14. Fair enough

You raise good points. One can glean interesting things from photos. I think it's less about the photo and more about the name. Many of the points raised in the article I shared make sense to me.

[Jedi Guy]

26. What you're talking about is discredited pseudoscience.

There was a "science" popular in the 19th century that was known as physiognomy. The basic idea is that one's features and/or outward appearance can reveal aspects of one's personality. Fun fact: It was particularly popular as a justification for scientific racism.

Some studies have shown that very limited traits may be inferred from facial characteristics, and it may have some applications in machine learning. But the kind of thing you're describing has long since been discredited.

For instance, people tell me I'm intimidating because I'm a big guy with a shaved head and I have the male version of "resting bitch face." Once people have gotten to know me they tell me that I'm nothing like my outward appearance suggests. My dad is the same way.

[Judi Lynn]

28. There are people who simply are superficial and have no way of grasping what they are seeing.

It's a matter of character and maturity, and inner stillness, knowing yourself.

Why would anyone even go to the trouble of taking pictures of people if there's nothing there to inform them?

Telling yourself people can't see the real you might be a little delusional. People say and do things for all kinds of reasons. People might tell you you aren't really a big stupid jerk at all once they get to know you. That would mean they may have been quick to not really see you in the first place, but were looking at very stupid, silly details about you. Maybe they aren't all that bright! Maybe they're just saying what they think you want to hear! Who knows?

You could save everyone a lot of time, and save the public a lot of money it throws at photography/videography professionals if you could persuade them to stop doing that because no one can really believe what he's seeing, anyway.

Very intimidating post, to be sure.

[Jedi Guy]

29. It's pseudoscience, like I said. If it were real science, it'd still be practiced.

I could show you a picture of someone like Ted Bundy, who was as evil as they come, but managed to charm his 30+ victims without much difficulty. Of course, you know who he is and what he did, so you'd immediately say that he looks creepy or some other such descriptor. But his victims didn't see anything amiss.

Or I could show you a picture of a plump, matronly middle-aged lady who looks like she wouldn't hurt a fly. In point of fact, she killed 11 people, 8 of whom were members of her family, with poison.

I'm saying that what you said, this idea that facial appearances can be used to deduce negative personality traits, simply isn't backed up by science, regardless of one's character, maturity, or "inner stillness," whatever that means.

I never argued that photo/videography is pointless because "no one can really believe what he's seeing." That's a straw man you constructed.

[Judi Lynn]

30. I'm grateful you are honed on spotting the pseudosciences. So many charlatans.

Your brand of scientists probably has also exposed the fact you can't tell a thing about one's tone of voice.

Also, there is never anything to be gathered other than the most literal reading of any remark.

All true, and so scientific.

[Jedi Guy]

31. You're getting straw all over the place, since I never said either of those things.

Tone of voice and interpretation of remarks both have absolutely zero to do with facial features and what one can or can't infer from them. Shoehorning them into the discussion does nothing to advance your argument. That's your second straw man argument in as many posts.

I rather doubt that you found my initial post intimidating, judging by this response. Rather, I think you found it aggravating that someone would have the temerity to point out that your beliefs have no basis in fact.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

16. Yeah, pretty sure that's not going to work.

Free press and all.

Not to mention pretending these people don’t exist isn’t going to stop them from actually existing.

I hear this one trotted out after every shooting as if it were a plausible solution.

[oberliner]

17. It's probably not going to work

I am just saying that, for me personally, I don't like to see the name and photo of the shooter spread around. I prefer to see the names and photos of the victims and tributes and celebrations of their lives. I thought the article helped present some reasons in support of this, but I get that not everyone agrees.

[lunasun]

8. I saw a report they never mentioned the two men killed by name,the people injured . I'd rather see

a photo tribute of victims murdered than mention his name or see his face agree

Link to tweet

/photo/1

[oberliner]

15. Thank you for posting that

I agree with your sentiments.

[Laurian]

3. His eyes look eerily like those of the Sandy Hook shooter.

Vacant.

[Judi Lynn]

13. Thank you for the reminder, Laurian.

Earlier childhood, Adam Lanza



Couldn't make the transition to adulthood at all, could he?

Thanks for your input.

[Tucker08087]

21. I don't know much about drugs

But could that wide-eyed stare be drug related?

[Judi Lynn]

22. I've seen that occassionally throughout my life, starting long before drugs were so widely used.

On edit:

Looking through the info. available, it does look as if he had been almost forced to take psychiatric drugs in the time following his parents' divorce.

Thanks for your post.

[Sancho]

5. People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[joshcryer]

10. Just let shrinks have access to the gun registry.

Flag people who are crazy.

75%+ of crazy bastards then won't be able to get a gun easily.

No complicated process.

[mwooldri]

18. Sancho, what you stated should be in existence... it's common sense to me.

A gun is a tool for a specific job. The right tool for the right job. It also helps to be properly trained on how to use the tool.

One does not simply hand over the keys of a car to a fifteen-year-old and say "Ok, go out and drive" - without a lick of instruction. But in some states that happens all too frequently.

People have to be licensed and/or certified to do things all the time. I'm licensed to sell you health and life insurance in the state of North Carolina (but I don't as I'm not under contract and I decided not to go into the insurance sales business). My wife is certified to do your lab tests in the hospital. My sister-in-law is certified to work on your teeth. In some areas, you are required to have a license for your dog. So why no gun license?

To me, it's common sense.

[digonswine]

27. Those are all good ideas-

I would add traceable ammo, ammo restrictions, smart guns, clip restrictions, etc.

We do seem to give away driver's licences around here. You don't need to show much skill to use a car. It should be difficult, but not expensive, to own a gun.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. He doesn't look like he's mustered in as part

of a well-regulated militia for the common defense

[hack89]

24. Just an American citizen. Nt

[joshcryer]

7. The GOP *knows* if this was studied it'd be mentally ill people.

And they know that the actual solution is a mental health registry that would preclude people with mental health issues for X amount of time from owning a gun.

And it terrifies them because they know that it means millions of their constitutions would be disqualified from owning guns.

[joshcryer]

19. Wow, I read some divorce stuff, lot of iffy stuff here:

https://thedailyrecord.com/maryland-family-law/files/2014/06/2033s12-Katz-v.-Katz.pdf

Trying to find the original divorce decree but man. This dude needed proper health care and it appears his parents were playing with fire.

I'll leave this here, it details the problems he had living with his mom: https://www.apnews.com/df2ecf1da4fd42e8a695eb6794129887

[appalachiablue]

23. A long, timeline report of the attack, and some family matters

and medical background. A very difficult situation.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-latest-sheriff-ids-2-men-killed-at-gaming-tournament/ar-BBMsWdq

[Judi Lynn]

25. Very intense situation for that young man. Needed far more help than he was getting.

Why don't parents realize they only have a few years to get it right with their kids before they become hopelessly damaged?

Thank you for our information.

[Tucker08087]

20. The background checks are simply not detailed enough

I empathize with him. He was a troubled young man. And I feel great pain for those murdered and injured. I am not against guns, but for stronger laws that keep us ALL safe. Nobody won this one. Not the gun nut and not the victims. Several sets of parents will weep themselves to sleep because someone who was not psychologically sound was legally permitted to own a gun. The time to take sides ended years ago. This infighting is ludicrous, as we watch our most vulnerable and our futures shattered needlessly. I’m so very sorry for all who have and will continue to suffer due to these violent, desperate acts.