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.

23 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    5. 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.
    6. 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".

    7. 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!
    8. 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
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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.

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

    240v

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  7. 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.
  8. Re:Why not kill the guy? by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Informative

    He was shot and is in critical condition. Happy?

  9. Re:Article summary sucks. by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    For those unfamiliar with firearms, a handy guide.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  10. 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.

  11. 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.