Slashdot Mirror


Gunman Opens Fire At LAX

McGruber tips news that today at 9:30AM PST, a man removed an assault rifle from a bag at Los Angeles International Airport and opened fire. The shooter moved into the screening area, and then further into the terminal. One TSA agent was killed; roughly six more people were injured. The gunman was a ticketed passenger. (Early reports suggested he worked for the TSA — this does not seem to be the case.) Police engaged him in gunfire, and he's now in custody. His motive is unknown at this time.

73 of 520 comments (clear)

  1. Great... by TWX · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just what we need, now we'll have a security checkpoint before our security checkpoint to prevent you from bringing a gun into the security checkpoint.

    Turtles all the way down...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yo, dawg.

    2. Re:Great... by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More like, prepare for this to look like a warzone as airports start to resemble third-world combat zones. Soldiers with assault rifles on their arms staking out every airport entrance and jeeps on patrol around the airport every hour of the day. This is exactly the sort of justification they needed to ratchet things up.

      That said, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think even a TSA agent deserved to be murdered in cold-blood.

    3. Re:Great... by rikkards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have been saying for the longest time, terrorists don't need to get on the plane. Now they just need to blow them selves up getting into the security line. What then is TSA going to do? It's a cat and mouse game and unfortunately the TSA isn't going to win

    4. Re:Great... by zlives · · Score: 2, Insightful

      or we could have a rational discussion about gun control...Nah

    5. Re:Great... by zlives · · Score: 3

      naked airlines... finally we can get the bible trumpeters on board in the name of war on terror

    6. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Rational discussion" meaning "groups of people coming to the same conclusion I did."

    7. Re:Great... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unlikely. They're already calling his weapon an "assault rifle", despite the fact that "a dozen" shots were fired.

      An assault rifle fires "a dozen" shots in about one second (automatic) or at most 4 trigger pulls (3 round burst).

      Unless the fire selector is set to single-shot. In which case I'd have to wonder why someone would go through the trouble of procuring an illegal firearm for themselves (assault rifles have been illegal since at least 1986) simply to use it in a manner that any legal (and easily obtained) semi-automatic rifle would suffice for.

      Maybe he's military, and it's his service weapon. Or maybe the news outlets are in a race to see who can offer the most hysterical coverage.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    8. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not until you realize that guns cannot be uninvented, and/or that trying to circumvent the process by which the US Constitution is amended will come back to bite you in the ass regarding the amendments that you actually care about, will we be able to have a rational discussion about gun control.

      Until then, it's not a discussion, it's just you telling me "you don't need a gun because I said so", and me responding back with "fuck off".

    9. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      or we could have a rational discussion about gun control...Nah

      Don't waste your breath. Not even the death of tens of children has had any effect whatsoever in "kicking the second amendment right where it belongs". That is into the wastebasket of History.
      Americans love guns. Good for them. Have them deal with the aftermath of these anounced tragedies.

    10. Re:Great... by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Assault rifles don't exist until someone commits assault with a rifle. At that point, any rifle is an assault rifle.

      Any time I see a news article or press release with the term "assault rifle" in it I know I'm dealing with someone who doesn't know anything at all about guns. A quick scan of TFA, BTW, does not name or picture the weapon. For all we know, it could be a deer rifle with a black stock, a Warsaw Pact semiauto AK, any of dozens of M4/M14/M16/AR15 semiauto clones, or a really tricked out Ruger 10-22 (and a lucky shot on the one kill). A more attentive reading might tell us more, but I doubt it.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    11. Re:Great... by TWX · · Score: 2

      Have you seen most people? Do you really want to see them naked?

      I'd guess that only about fifteen percent of people are in the right condition to look good while naked. That means most viewers would only want to see about seven to eight percent of people, in totality, naked.

      I really don't want to see Naked Airlines. For every Christina Ricci there'd be five Rosie O'Donnells.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    12. Re:Great... by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did you know a .22 short fired from a revolver can penetrate 12-inches of wetpack with roughly a 1-inch wound channel?

      Sure, .22 is a tiny caliber - but that doesn't mean it's not dangerous.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    13. Re:Great... by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Airport = "gun free zone," just the same as schools and malls tend to be, which is where these "events" tend to happen.

      Since it was a so called "gun free zone," pretty much the only lawfully armed people there would be the police. (There are some very limited exceptions.) For some reason criminals seem to ignore both social convention and signs forbidding the bringing weapons into areas so marked. The law abiding, assuming they didn't overlook it, would disarm before entering such a place. I'm sure that someone as sharp as you can see the potential for asymmetric outcomes there.

      You may find this instructive: Clackamas mall shooter faced man with concealed weapon

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    14. Re:Great... by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll assume this is a real question from someone that doesn't know the quote.

      Turtle = TSA Agent?

      There is a legend of how the universe is constructed that the Earth lies on the back of a giant turtle. But wait, what does the turtle stand on? Ummmm, well another turtle. OK, what does that stand on? Eventually you get to "turtles all the way down".

      It's become a phrase in some situations where you wave away a hard problem by having more and more layers of the same, turtles all the way down.

    15. Re:Great... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      The SKS is not, nor ever was, an "assault rifle".

      Nothing that most civilians can buy qualifies as an "assault rifle". I believe a weapon has to be fully or scheduled automatic to qualify as an assault rifle. Generally the media calls them "assault weapons". Which has no real meaning other than someone thinks it a big scary looking firearm of some sort.

    16. Re:Great... by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      No, you just have to hit the right things to get an immediate kill with it. Whether you die before the barrel cools, or you bleed out over the course of several minutes - dead is dead.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    17. Re:Great... by qbast · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your government has nukes, artillery, tanks, bombers, etc. Are you going to demand access to these too? After all your logic seems to be 'whatever government can has, I want too'.

    18. Re:Great... by deanklear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Australia had a similar gun control problem and solved it:

      http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk5MW28lgaNa7L

      Everyone -- including the most vocal opponents of the plan -- are happy with the results, Australia remains a democracy, and there have been zero mass shootings since those changes took effect nearly two decades ago. Homicide rates and suicide rates have also declined.

      Sometimes the other side is irrational, and this is one of those cases.

    19. Re:Great... by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 2

      Well, GP is blabbering on without a clear idea of what he's talking about, but given that the military (and IMO only legitimate) definition of the "assault rifle" is a rifle or carbine that is (1) select-fire and (2) chambered for an intermediate cartridge, he's not quite wrong about the deer-hunting thing. (Most states actually forbid use of legally-owned select-fire weapons for hunting, but we'll focus on part 2.) Note however, that "small arms" in military parlance includes everything from handguns to sniper rifles to 7.62 machine guns -- the word "small" is meant in comparison to crew-served weapons -- so if he's right about the cartridges it's more due to luck than knowledge.

      OTOH, the news and entertainment media generally don't know or don't care much about firearms, and the general public (including witnesses of this attack) learn from there, so there's no telling what the term "assault rifle" actually refers to, so trying to figure out what cartridge he was using from the use of that term is a singularly foolish pursuit.

      Can you elaborate, and provide sources. I am not aware of specific rifles being banned for deer hunting. Nor am I aware of cartridge rules, other than a centerfire requirement.

      Of course cartridge legality varies state to state. Many states have rules based on some combination (rational or not) of one or more of: caliber, velocity, case length, and energy; the effect in most states is to prohibit modern assault rifle cartridges (e.g. 5.56 NATO and 5.45x39). Sometimes 7.62x39 is OK, sometimes not.

      I can't be bothered to make sure it's right, but a brief google for your state turned up this, which suggests that Oregon is more permissive and simple than most, apparently permitting any .22 caliber or larger centerfire for taking deer, while taking e.g. elk requires .24 caliber or larger.

      (Note that, if Oregon law is as simple as that page suggests, it's so loose as to defeat the point of having cartridge restrictions in the first place, as it seems to permit a carbine in .25 ACP for taking elk, while forbidding .220 Swift for elk or .17 Remington for deer.)

      If a specific cartridge, say the .223 were banned for its inability to kill, why is a bow legal?

      Well, there's two answers to that. The physics-geek one is to do some math about momentum and/or kinetic energy of arrows (which are much slower, but much, much heavier) vs. bullets, maybe throw in some notion of the difference between the wound channels produced by broadheads and bullets, and argue that some arrows are rather more lethal than some assault-rifle rounds (which, despite not having done the math, I'm pretty sure is true).

      But the real answer is: because laws aren't rational. Bowhunting is, at this point, a traditional sport pursued for fun, and banning it on humane grounds (whether or not this would make sense from a physics perspective) will be perceived as a killjoy assault on tradition, and will not be politically viable. As I said, I'm pretty sure some arrows exceed the performance of the rifle rounds in question anyway, so I suspect a more rational approach would involve requiring bowhunting setups to meet a minimum momentum or energy standard. However, this would be effectively banning bowhunting for those too small and/or weak to draw a bow with enough energy to meet the requirements, and would be portrayed as an assault on tradition and discrimination against women bowhunters, and would likewise be politically unviable. By contrast, a restriction on rifle chamberings just means a few hunters need to buy a new rifle, then go on hunting -- some will grumble, some will see it as a good excuse to buy the gun they wanted but their wife wouldn't let them buy, but it won't be near as disruptive to the sport.

    20. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If guns were outlawed, the perpetrator would use a so-called "assault knife" or "assault baseball bat" to commit the crimes with.

      Well yeah, but the body count would be a lot lower.

    21. Re:Great... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's my point Airports are full of armed guards and police... At least UK ones are. Men and women, with guns, loaded, maintained, trained in their use and ready to act. Didn't seem to help here.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:Great... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

      Australia banned such weapons and mass shootings dropped from 1 every 18 months to 1 (arguable) in 17 years. The strategy does indeed work.

      (The total number of firearms is higher than ever. It's the types that matter.)

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    23. Re:Great... by Smauler · · Score: 4, Informative

      Whereas since banning handguns in the UK, handgun crime has gone up (that is, crimes involving handguns, not possession of one), and all firearm crime has gone up by more. Look at the graph on this page. about 1/2 the way down. Handguns were banned in 1997, when gun crime was on a downward curve.

      Also, see this(PDF, sorry about the google cruft, can't be bothered editing) police statistics report. It shows that serious handgun crime more than doubled in the 4 years after they were banned, despite having been dropping for the previous 10 years or so, when they were legal.

      I don't own a gun, probably never will, but I dislike the government telling me what I can and can't have based on poor logic. Also, It had been demonstrably shown that in the UK, barring other factors (and I doubt there were _that_ many other factors), banning handguns increased handgun crime.

    24. Re:Great... by TWX · · Score: 2

      I've been through Heathrow, in fact I was flying internationally the day that the Christmas Day Bomber attempted to blow up a plane, and a few days later for the return home.

      The experience in Heathrow was far, far different than any experience that I've had in American airports. It felt like there was a level of professionalism in London that I've never seen in American airports since the aftermath of September 11th. Honestly I felt like there was more professionalism before the Jihadis changed the status quo.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    25. Re:Great... by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      Airports are not full of armed guards. Security, yes, but not armed guards. And we're in favor of citizens carrying weapons, not just cops.

    26. Re:Great... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      So they just have an airplane fetish then? If you want to instill fear proving to people that they have nowhere to hide, that nothing can protect them, would seem awfully effective to me. That is why suicide bombers in busy security lines is pure genuis. There just is no defense against that. Machine gunning the line is not quite as effective, but it's not half bad either.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    27. Re:Great... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm sorry, but you've been lied to.

      The homicide rates in Australia did not decline after their gun ban. Or rather, they declined (averaged), but at the same rate they were declining before. In fact, that brief spike that you see on the graph is right after the ban.

      Suicides also do not show any correlation with gun ban. Suicides by gun declined, yes (again, at the same rate they were declining prior to the ban), but suicides by hanging actually increased.

      Violent crime rate, meanwhile, has increased, mainly due to increase in assaults, and in particular of sexual assault. Robbery rate actually spiked after the ban, but then went back to where it was. Everything else didn't change.

      So, no. Australia did not solve anything, the laws were purely "feel good" kind of stuff.

    28. Re:Great... by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      "If they just want to kill people, there are plenty of other places to do that at lower risk. "

      They don't want to just kill people, they want to terrorize people. That's why they are called terrorists.

      The security line is what is claimed to keep you safe from terrorists. Attacking it specifically demonstrates that it makes you *less* safe. And to crib the joke from another comment, there's no security line before the security line, so the risks of getting caught are lower than trying to get actually inside of some secure area.

      My conclusion is that terrorist on average are dumb.

    29. Re:Great... by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      First, there is no such thing as an "assault rifle." There are bolt action, semi-auto, full auto, and (as you mentioned), 3-round bursts, trigger mechanisms, none of which are exclusive to rifles. Assault is something you can do with a firearm (or knife, or hands), not a characteristic of the weapon itself. Calling something an assault rifle is almost as ridiculous as calling a children "suicide bomb delivery platforms." I say almost because there's no question that the firearms people often think of as "assault rifles" are primarily designed for shooting other people. But so are most pistols, yet nobody calls them "assault pistols."

      Second, the so-called assault weapon ban was enacted in 1994 and expired in 2004. It had nothing to do with fully automatic weapons and, in fact, only applied to semi-automatic weapons. It drew a rather arbitrary line as to what was and was not an assault weapon, like where the magazine attaches, and whether the stock extends (which is silly, since people have different arm lengths.)

      Third, what you're thinking of is the restriction on fully automatic weapons, which does not ban said weapons, only regulates their transfer to varying degrees depending on whether they were in private hands before 1986. It's perfectly legal to buy a fully automatic weapon manufactured before that date, though there are a lot of hoops to jump through, and they're not cheap. One can also purchase a new fully automatic weapon if he obtains a Federal Firearms License. People who go through the legal process have, almost by definition, demonstrated that they are trustworthy. Criminals tend to just modify cheap weapons to make them fully automatic anyway, or make do with other weapons.

      None of this is to say what the laws should be, only what they are. I have my opinions, but I respect those who disagree, because I feel that there are valid arguments on both sides, even if I think the other side's arguments don't outweigh my own personal views. Firearm regulations are something that I feel very strongly should be decided democratically. I don't think there is a "right" answer, only varying strategies to keep as many people safe as possible, which I think both sides want. I tend to favor empirical data, but in the absence of that, we have to make the best decisions we can, hopefully in a reasonable and rational way.

    30. Re:Great... by Cimexus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All quite true - some criminals still have guns in Australia (though not many, as a proportion of total criminals). However they are almost invariably handguns, shotguns or single-shot rifles (not semi autos which tend to the be weapon of choice in the US it seems). Furthermore, it's very rare that they are used in random attacks or sprees such as you see in the US. Think about when you hear of a shooting in Australia these days. 95+% of the time it's criminal-on-criminal (related to bikie gangs or other forms of organized crime). Other more petty crims with guns might use them in a holdup or robbery, but rarely seem to actually ~use~ them (i.e. they use the weapon to threaten the victim). I can't recall more than a couple of instances of actual murder of an innocent person or people with a firearm in Australia (outside of organized crime) in the last decade. One in particular I recall from a couple of years ago where someone shot, intending to hit person X, but missed and hit person Y, way in the distance, who was a poor truck driver that just happened to driving past. But still, incidents like that are rare.

      Source: anecdotal admittedly, but I'm a dual Aussie-US citizen who spends a decent amount of time in both countries. The situation in Australia ain't perfect of course, but I don't really care about bikie gangs shooting each other up to be honest - good riddance. You don't see criminals with guns killing indiscriminately, or the mass shooting sprees, that you see in the US.

    31. Re:Great... by spiralx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Chart one on the police report you linked to shows there were fewer crimes where firearms were used in 2011 than in 1997, the year the handgun ban went into effect. That's despite the fact that

      The method used for counting the number of firearms offences in England and Wales was changed on 1 April 1998 and, as a result, the reported number of offences has been seen to increase across some categories of offence.

      If you look at the second chart then you can even see that the "big increase" of firearm use in 2003 was nothing to do with handguns anyway, it was mostly from air guns.

    32. Re:Great... by deimtee · · Score: 2

      Your government has nukes, artillery, tanks, bombers, etc. Are you going to demand access to these too? After all your logic seems to be 'whatever government can has, I want too'.

      Any objective reading of the second amendment would seem to indicate that that is the case. If you don't like it, you should work to get the second amendment changed, not work to violate your constitution.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    33. Re:Great... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      More like, prepare for this to look like a warzone as airports start to resemble third-world combat zones. Soldiers with assault rifles on their arms staking out every airport entrance and jeeps on patrol around the airport every hour of the day.

      What you meant to say there was:

      More like, prepare for this to look like a warzone as US airports start to resemble third-world combat zones. Soldiers with assault rifles on their arms staking out every US airport entrance and jeeps on patrol around the US airport every hour of the day.

      Flew out of an airport in Croatia a few months ago, a country that has about, oh, a million times more experience with violence and terror than the US. A passenger asked an airport staff member whether he had to take his shoes off during the check-in process. The staff member said no, but if he was carrying firearms he had to notify them.

      When was the last time you heard of a hijacked aircraft (or whatever the TSA are supposed to be dealing with) in Croatia?

    34. Re:Great... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      So, no. Australia did not solve anything, the laws were purely "feel good" kind of stuff.

      Actually the number of mass shootings has decreased by a cool 100% since the ban came into effect.

      People who want to kill other people will find a way. Glassings and stabbings are quite popular in this country. Most gun crime is some thug shooting some other thug. One thing we don't get a lot of down here (or really any of down here) is indiscriminate killing of random people en mass. That seems to be a thing reserved for countries that let any loon and their dog own an automatic weapon.

  2. Re:Motive was to shoot people, I'd guess by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    Whatever his deeper motive is, it's all too likely to be whitewashed.

    Or simply fall into the (really rather common) category of 'Yes, it's a motive; but nothing you say can really convey why it would be so motivating."

    Not all affect states can be conveyed verbally, especially to people who haven't experienced them. All you can do is use hollow allusions to them.

    Do we all know what words like 'hate', 'jealousy', 'frustration' mean? Sure. Do we know what they mean in the sense used by somebody who would offer one or more of them as an explanation for why he would face nearly certain death or capture in order to shoot up a terminal in LAX? Probably not. Not even clear that we could.

  3. Harder than killing him... by N_Piper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My congratulations on the Police who did the difficult task of taking this man alive.

    1. Re:Harder than killing him... by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Funny

      It could just be poor marksmanship.

    2. Re:Harder than killing him... by SailorSpork · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to TFA, he was shot in the chest multiple times before being taken into custody. I don't think bringing him in alive was their top priority, but I agree that it is unusual and will be interesting to hear what he claims his motives were rather than piecing it together by scraping it off of his Facebook page and his Guns 'R Us receipts.

  4. Re:Gunman by sjames · · Score: 5, Funny

    OMG NO! We can't allow ANY magazines of any kind. if you're bored at the airport, you'll just have to read a pamphlet.

  5. Re:damn by Mitchell314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There tends to be much confusion right after events like these. Give it time.

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  6. Screening areas as terrorist targets by onyxruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many years have people been complaining that the only the thing the long lines at the screening areas do is make for a target rich environment? Attacking waiting points for security lines is a time honored practice in some parts of the world, the only surprising thing is that it took this long for it to occur here.

    Security theater isn't just an inconvenience, it's a security risk in and of itself. I used to travel for a living and I have easily seen times in major airports where there were thousands of people queued up to go through the security checkpoints. It's a target rich environment where you can't miss for trying in some airports.

    It's time to end security theater and demand real security.

    1. Re:Screening areas as terrorist targets by Megane · · Score: 2

      Apparently in this case it was more of a "bystander-rich environment". All those passengers kept getting in the way of his objective of shooting TSA people.

      "He saw me. He looked at me with a quizzical look and said, 'TSA?' And I just shook my head. So he moved on," Saryan said.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:Screening areas as terrorist targets by crakbone · · Score: 2

      All of those areas are shown to have people with concealed carry. Who do shoot back. The airport is a self described gun free zone. Knowing where the police and security with guns on their sides are is different from having the innocent 70 year old man all of a sudden draw down on you when your back is turned.

  7. Re:What kind of gun? by Mitchell314 · · Score: 4, Funny

    240v

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  8. Impossible! by ApplePy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This could not possibly be real --

    a man removed an assault rifle from a bag at Los Angeles International Airport and opened fire.

    Assault rifles are illegal in California; therefore this could never have happened!

    --
    That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    1. Re:Impossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They have not been illegal. All you need is a $200 tax stamp to own one (and the usual, no felony, etc.) All the assault rifles that are legal for purchase were manufactured before 1986 when the machine gun registry was closed. The states have the right to decide that they don't want machine guns at all but there is no federal prohibition.

    2. Re:Impossible! by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Assault rifles are illegal in California; therefore this could never have happened!

      So is murder, so not only did he not use a gun, but he didn't kill anyone either, right?

      So not only is 'gun control' moot since only criminals will have guns, but we may as well repeal murder laws since criminals will ignore those too, right? Indeed, why have laws at all, since it just means more things on the books for criminals to ignore?

      Is that argument you are making? Because that's what it sounds like.

    3. Re:Impossible! by vux984 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Take your straw man and go home

      So, seriously then, what was your argument?

      Because if the "if guns are criminalized, then only criminals will have guns" mantra wasn't it, then I'm genuinely curious what point you were making.

      And if that mantra was the point, then my Murder example may be hyperbole, but the point is valid. Making anything illegal doesn't stop the criminals from doing it. It never has, and it never will.

      It does however give society a chance to catch a murderer-to-be with gun prior to using it. Naturally, a determined would-be murderer has any number of other options from knives to knitting needles and we can't realistically ban all of them, and should not try to. But a ban on a weapon whose designed function is to kill or incapacitate lots of people at range quickly might save lives, if the weapon is detected before its used.

  9. Re:Those poor people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm glad it's only six. It's really hard to believe there weren't more. A guy with an assault weapon aimin' to misbehave at a busy airport terminal? You'd think there would be dozens dead and many more injured.

  10. Re:How is this news for nerds? by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe it's because some nerds travel by airplane.

    Maybe it's because Slashdotters have been pointing out that the line at the screening checkpoint is, itself, a target, and they have unfortunately been proven correct.

    I seem to recall there are a number of gun-rights advocates in the Slashdot community, who may be concerned about a legislative (over?)reaction to this atrocious act.

    Then there are people like me who check Slashdot a lot more often than they check mainstream news sites, and learned about the shooting just now.

    I don't mean to be too hard on you, because your question is legitimate. My best answer is, "news for nerds" is in the eye of the beholder and sometimes the editors will post a story that doesn't interest you, but does interest someone else.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  11. Re:Why not kill the guy? by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Informative

    He was shot and is in critical condition. Happy?

  12. Re:Those poor people by HatofPig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Really? +4? That's despicable, security guards are fucking people too. Or is this some kind of sick justice for you and those who up-moderated you? How can you justify this an consider yourself 'people'? If a gunman mowed down a courtroom during a tech-giant patent trial, would you eschew any sympathy for the lawyers who died too? Not liking the TSA is one thing, but implying a random person deserved to be fatally shot by a crazed gunman at an airport is sociopathic.

    --
    Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay
  13. Re:Article summary sucks. by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    For those unfamiliar with firearms, a handy guide.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  14. Re:deplorable by intermodal · · Score: 2

    It wouldn't be half as offensive if what the government did were in some way related to keeping us safe. The TSA is the least convincing theatre troupe I have ever encountered.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  15. Firearm Legal Status by awkScooby · · Score: 4, Informative

    An assault rifle, by definition is a machine gun. The gun used at LAX wasn't (as best we can tell from the available information). So the first sentence in the summary is inaccurate.

    There's speculation, based on a photo on Twitter that the rifle is a Ruger Mini-14, in which case it may not have qualified as an "assault weapon" as defined by Federal Law. Under Feinstein's last [failed] assault weapon ban, the Ruger Mini-14 with a collapsible stock was banned, but the other Mini-14's were ok. It would depend on whether or not the stock folds/collapses.

    Under California law, the pistol grip, and ability to accept a detachable magazine are sufficient to classify it as an "assault weapon."

    Looks like high capacity magazines were used, although they may have had inserts to render them legal (i.e. limit them to 10 rounds). If they are large capacity and he owned them before 2000, they're legal. Otherwise they would only be legal if they were limited to 10 rounds (or fewer).

    We can say with high confidence that a semi-automatic rifle was used. Under the previous Federal assault weapon ban, and the more recent failed Federal effort, this rifle may or may not have been considered an "assault weapon." Under California law this rifle is an assault weapon. The magazines may or may not have been legal.

  16. Re:Gunman by camperdave · · Score: 2

    Don't get me started... next thing you know some states are going to ban possession of nuclear weapons. They don't understand that if nuclear weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons.

    Yes, and do we really want our outlaws more heavily armed than our inlaws?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  17. Re:Article summary sucks. by crakbone · · Score: 4, Informative

    I believe it stands for Armalite. The company that makes the rifle. The 15 is the model. It is not an assault rifle despite it's looks.

  18. Re:Those poor people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You're a dick. That's all.

    No and you want to know whay ? Because feeling sorry time and time again doesn't fix the problem. Every time a tragedy like this occurs, we hear people being sorry, politicians shedding crocodile tears and then what ? Nothing changes because Americans and the NRA are so in love with their weapons that they blame everything EXCEPT guns. So we put the blame on films, we put the blame on videogames, we put the blame on sex, we put the blame on hocus pocus etc... But we never have the political resolve to fix the real cause of these massacres. The freely available guns in this country.
    Courtesy of the fucking second amendment.
    America is a country of guns with all it entails. Deal with it.

  19. Re:The NRA must be pleased by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Informative

    but few, if any, would argue that it documents a right to discharge their firearms in such a manner.

    But a whole bunch of people spend a whole lot of time and money making sure that nutjobs have access to guns that fire 60 rounds per minute.

  20. Re:What kind of gun? by demonlapin · · Score: 2, Funny

    I bet you they'd call a .22 LR a high-powered rifle. I mean, it shoots supersonic bullets!

  21. Re:Conspiracy theory by phorm · · Score: 2

    Locked in a room and forced to a Justin Beiber & Miley Cyrus singalong with William Shatner as a special guest?

  22. Re:Those poor people by X0563511 · · Score: 2

    You could, yes. But that's never what you see happening, incidentally.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  23. Re:Gunman by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

    Nobody really cares what you do with your hair, just so long as nobody dyes - suicide blondes are right out.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  24. Re:Those poor people by eyenot · · Score: 2

    Do you need to see a wine list of all the people that you, too, can't stomach to consider as "people", to remind you of how wrong you're being? Or would you prefer to be treated as a person?

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  25. Re:The NRA must be pleased by bigfinger76 · · Score: 2

    I thought it wasn't an assault rifle?

  26. One of those stories by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is one of those stories where non-Americans sit back and watch, gobsmacked, as American /.ers rant on about gun-ownership, utterly unaware of what barking lunatics they all sound like.

    You guys have a massive cultural blind-spot when it comes to this stuff. It's incredible.

    1. Re:One of those stories by Cimexus · · Score: 2

      Agreed - the problem is nutcase people, not the tool. BUT ... the tool in this case is capable of killing more quickly, more effectively and at a greater distance than almost any other tool out there. You're somewhat removed from the act of killing, unlike a knife where you have to get up close, messy and personal. Mentally I think it's a lot harder to stab someone than shoot them - a higher degree of craziness is needed.

      Furthermore, a gun is designed specifically for the purpose, unlike a car or a bat or a chainsaw, which are tools that have other main uses (the ability for them to hurt other people is secondary). You couldn't ban cars or all those other items you could theoretically kill with, because they are needed for society to function. Guns, not as much (yes people shoot for sport, but it's not as vital a function as transportation/construction/etc.)

      For those reasons, I would argue that a gun isn't really comparable to other tools or methods of killing. Noone is arguing that banning guns will put a stop to violence - as you say, people will use other means to achieve the same end. But the barriers to killing with guns are far lower than with other tools or objects. The point is to do what you can to reduce violence like this, not necessarily eliminate it ... and guns are the 'low hanging fruit'.

    2. Re:One of those stories by Cimexus · · Score: 2

      True. But no two countries on earth share a common history and culture ... that's kind of why they are different countries to begin with. Yet almost developed countries, despite their differing cultures, have tighter gun controls and agree that this does more good than harm. It's not like there's some countries on one side and a roughly equal number on the other. It's pretty much the US who stands alone on this one (which is a common theme - see also: metric system).

      So yeah, America is different from other countries. But it's not 'special' ... it's no more 'different' from everyone else than any number of other pairs of countries you could name. (Note that I'm not arguing for or against gun control specifically in this post, I'm just pointing out that saying that you don't share a culture with others doesn't really have much relevance ... it's not like all 'non-Americans' are a monolithic bunch either!)

  27. Re:Those poor people by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 2

    It's funny because people who get a decent paying job where bureaucrats want them to touch strangers' junk stop being people. It has nothing to do with the bureaucrats and the people who think security theater works.

  28. Re:Those poor people by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    What you don't remember the Chinese mass stabbing around the same time as a recent US school shooting? Many stabbed, none dead. Not the same as the US result.

    Plus, someone using bare hands to stab with a kitchen knife and no training, would likely end up with self-inflicted wounds. Getting blood on it from the first victim, making the handle slippery is common, then the second, without a guard (as few kitchen knives do), they will slip and cut their own hand wide open. It's common in stabbing perpetrators to have cut hands.

  29. Whatever by blackpaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Another shooting in the USA ... yeah yeah whatever. I really don't care anymore. You guys shoot yourselves up and scream about the 2nd amendment to your hearts content, sure as the sun rises tommorrow there will be another shooting soon and you won't do shit to change it

    One thing for sure kiddies - it ain't news for nerds or stuff that matters, if it was, something constructive would be done. After all this time we have to conclude you idiots like it this way.

  30. Snopes (for anyone who cares about the truth) by deanklear · · Score: 2

    http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

    In the specific case offered here, context is the most important factor. The piece quoted above leads the reader to believe that much of the Australian citizenry owned handguns until their ownership was made illegal and all firearms owned by "law-abiding citizens" were collected by the government through a buy-back program in 1997. This is not so. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law.

    Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because "criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed" are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback. But beyond that, most of the statistics offered here are misleading and present only "first year results" where long-term trends need to be considered in order to draw valid cause-and-effect conclusions.

    For example, the first entry states that "Homicides are up 3.2%." This statistic is misleading because it reflects only the absolute number of homicides rather than the homicide rate. (A country with a rapidly-growing population, for example, might experience a higher number of crimes even while its overall crime rate decreased.) An examination of statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) reveals that the overall homicide rate in Australia has changed little over the past decade and actually dipped slightly after the 1997 gun buy-back program. (The chart found at this link also demonstrates how easily statistics based on small sample sizes can mislead, as when the homicide rate in Tasmania increased nearly eight-fold in one year based on a single incident in which 35 people were killed.)

    Then we have the claim that "In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent." This is another example of how misleading statistics can be when the underlying numbers are not provided: Victoria, a state with a population of over four-and-a-half million people in 1997, experienced 7 firearm-related homicides in 1996 and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997 (an increase of 171%, not 300%). An additional twelve homicides amongst a population of 4.5 million is not statistically significant, nor does this single-year statistic adequately reflect long-term trends. Moreover, the opening paragraph mixes two very different types of statistics number of homicides vs. percentage of homicides committed with firearms. In the latter case, it should be noted that the Australia-wide percentage of homicides committed with firearms is now lower than it was before the gun buy-back program, and lower than it has been at any point during the past ten years. (In the former case, the absolute number of firearm homicides in Australia in 1998-99 was the lowest in the past ten years.)

    Other claims offered here, such as the statement that "While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months" and "There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly" are even more difficult to evaluate, because they don't offer any figures or standards of measurement at all. Do they deal with absolute numbers, o