Shots fired at LAX

Last-12-Exit

Breaking news on CNN right now. No real information is bei g given right now other than shots fired at terminal 3 at LAX. Fire department reporting that this is a "multi-patient" incident.

mickeyrat

TSA was targeted according to reports from investigators. 1 TSA agent killed others wounded. Shooter wounded and in cusotdy.

brianlux

Here we go again.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... a/3361293/

LAX shooting suspect made suicidal references to family

The 23-year-old suspect in the Los Angeles International Airport shooting had family members worried that he may attempt to take his own life, according to details that have begun to emerge.

Paul Anthony Ciancia, the Los Angeles resident identified by the FBI as the suspected gunman, is alleged to have killed TSA officer Gerardo I. Hernandez, 39, on Friday. Several other people were also hurt that attack, some who may have been injured while trying to escape from the scene, authorities say.

Ciancia was wounded in a shootout with police and is now in custody.

On Friday, a sibling of Ciancia's received a text message from Ciancia saying he was thinking about taking his life, according to the Associated Press.

A federal law enforcement official, who didn't want to be named, told USA TODAY that the alleged shooter's family was worried about his emotional well-being. They alerted local police, and those officers relayed the family's concerns to Los Angeles authorities.

The official said Los Angeles police reportedly made contact with the alleged shooter's roommates who said Ciancia appeared to be okay.

The suspect grew up in Pennsville, N.J., according to an AP report that cited the town's police chief Allen Cummings as providing the information.

Cummings deemed the Ciancias as a "good family" and said his department had no dealings with him, according to a report on NJ.com.

Ciancia, a longtime township resident, did not attend Pennsville schools, according to media reports. He attended Salesianum School in Wilmington, Del.

Two former classmates of Ciancia's deemed the suspected shooter as a loner at the private high school, according to the Los Angeles Times.

"In four years, I never heard a word out of his mouth," said David Hamilton, who graduated with Ciancia from Salesianum School in 2008, and is now an editorial assistant at a publishing firm in Philadelphia. "He kept to himself and ate lunch alone a lot. I really don't remember any one person who was close to him."

Another classmate, Jeff Skidmore, told the Los Angeles Times that Ciancia wore black on "dress down" days when they were not required to wear their uniforms.

"He was definitely awkward," Skidmore said. "He was always hanging his head and just shuffling along."

On Friday evening, media members were camped out front of Ciancia father's driveway in New Jersey, which was blocked by police.

Joshua Pagan, 17, has lived across the street from Ciancia residence for past 10 years.

"I've seen (Paul) a few times, but I did not know him personally," Pagan said. "From what I've seen and heard, he was just a normal person – just an every-day guy."

Pagan finds it hard to comprehend that Ciancia would violently open fire in an airport.

"Right now I am still trying to process this," he says. "Did this really happen? Did they get the wrong guy? Because if they told me they got the wrong guy, it would make a lot more sense to me."

Investigators recovered a rambling message from the bag the shooter was allegedly carrying, which detailed an intent to kill TSA officers, two federal law enforcement officials said.

The officials, who are not authorized to comment publicly but who was familiar with contents of the message, said it was written in way that the author expected that his own life to be taken in the incident.

"This was clearly a suicide mission,'' one of the officials said. "He did not expect to walk away from this.''

The shooter, who was shot in the face, survived an exchange of gunfire with police. His condition was not immediately known, said the official.

CAVSTARR313

Isn't that already illegal?

certainly at airport.. That is a strictly enforced "no gun" zone!

so if there are strict laws agianst that, how the hell did it happen? laws will protect people, right?

yeah, I am being a little dick-ish and this is horrible (once again) but there are quite a few laws banning this one..

but, according to some, more laws will help :roll:

Jason P

Caveeze wrote:

Isn't that already illegal?

certainly at airport.. That is a strictly enforced "no gun" zone!

so if there are strict laws agianst that, how the hell did it happen? laws will protect people, right?

yeah, I am being a little dick-ish and this is horrible (once again) but there are quite a few laws banning this one..

but, according to some, more laws will help :roll:

I'm surprised that a terror cell has yet to take advantage of the easiest soft target ... the TSA screening line

Outside of Disneyland, where do you have a group of people packed together so tightly?

mickeyrat

Caveeze wrote:

Isn't that already illegal?

certainly at airport.. That is a strictly enforced "no gun" zone!

so if there are strict laws agianst that, how the hell did it happen? laws will protect people, right?

yeah, I am being a little dick-ish and this is horrible (once again) but there are quite a few laws banning this one..

but, according to some, more laws will help :roll:

eh, its ok. Really. Freedom is an exacting bitch that must be paid in blood.

Godfather.

Caveeze wrote:

Isn't that already illegal?

certainly at airport.. That is a strictly enforced "no gun" zone!

so if there are strict laws agianst that, how the hell did it happen? laws will protect people, right?

yeah, I am being a little dick-ish and this is horrible (once again) but there are quite a few laws banning this one..

but, according to some, more laws will help :roll:

more laws mean more punks like this dickweed will have easyer access to guns thu the black market, so yeah man you nailed it.

Godfather.

Godfather.

mickeyrat wrote:

Caveeze wrote:

Isn't that already illegal?

certainly at airport.. That is a strictly enforced "no gun" zone!

so if there are strict laws agianst that, how the hell did it happen? laws will protect people, right?

yeah, I am being a little dick-ish and this is horrible (once again) but there are quite a few laws banning this one..

but, according to some, more laws will help :roll:

eh, its ok. Really. Freedom is an exacting bitch that must be paid in blood.

paid in blood....very interesting statement,nobody can deny that.

Godfather.

mickeyrat

Godfather. wrote:

Caveeze wrote:

Isn't that already illegal?

certainly at airport.. That is a strictly enforced "no gun" zone!

so if there are strict laws agianst that, how the hell did it happen? laws will protect people, right?

yeah, I am being a little dick-ish and this is horrible (once again) but there are quite a few laws banning this one..

but, according to some, more laws will help :roll:

more laws mean more punks like this dickweed will have easyer access to guns thu the black market, so yeah man you nailed it.

Godfather.

see, this is an argument I ;d liek to have addressed, if someone is willing ot try.

Just HOW do these guns make their way to the black market/street?

Major robberies at the manufacturers? Individual thefts from homes?

Or is it more likely that ready access to states with lax laws (Like Ohio , every 2-3 months here in Columbus is a Gun Show "get em while you can!!!") and reporting of sales make it easy for a person to purchase weapons for places like gun shows with little accountability then transport across state lines and sold at a premium. Capitalism at its finest.


Why then is it that there are serial numbers on guns in the first place?

In my opinion , you should be required to have liability insurance on weapons and be held criminally liable if a weapon you purchased is later used in a crime , unless it can be proven that you had your weapons stored in a manner to reasonably believe they were secure but were still stolen.

Godfather.

mickeyrat wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

Caveeze wrote:

Isn't that already illegal?

certainly at airport.. That is a strictly enforced "no gun" zone!

so if there are strict laws agianst that, how the hell did it happen? laws will protect people, right?

yeah, I am being a little dick-ish and this is horrible (once again) but there are quite a few laws banning this one..

but, according to some, more laws will help :roll:

more laws mean more punks like this dickweed will have easyer access to guns thu the black market, so yeah man you nailed it.

Godfather.

see, this is an argument I ;d liek to have addressed, if someone is willing ot try.

Just HOW do these guns make their way to the black market/street?

Major robberies at the manufacturers? Individual thefts from homes?

Or is it more likely that ready access to states with lax laws (Like Ohio , every 2-3 months here in Columbus is a Gun Show "get em while you can!!!") and reporting of sales make it easy for a person to purchase weapons for places like gun shows with little accountability then transport across state lines and sold at a premium. Capitalism at its finest.


Why then is it that there are serial numbers on guns in the first place?

In my opinion , you should be required to have liability insurance on weapons and be held criminally liable if a weapon you purchased is later used in a crime , unless it can be proven that you had your weapons stored in a manner to reasonably believe they were secure but were still stolen.

actually....if a gun regestered to you is used in a crime like a murder believe me you will be contacted,if you sell a gun without proper reg. and change of ownership you will get in trouble if the fed's catch wind of it, I know people that have done time for this.....

Godfather.

Gern Blansten

Another right wing Glenn Beck/Alex Jones worshipping freak job

ajedigecko

And inner city LA...every day of the year.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mickeyrat wrote:

In my opinion , you should be required to have liability insurance on weapons and be held criminally liable if a weapon you purchased is later used in a crime , unless it can be proven that you had your weapons stored in a manner to reasonably believe they were secure but were still stolen.

Yet another practical strategy that is frequently met with resistance. Place the burden of responsibility on those that wish to assume it. This is more than fair... isn't it? Why would any reasonable person resist such a change effort?

Because the level of irresponsibility is bigger than you would think. It was in this forum that many of our responsible gun owners admitted they never stored their weapons in the safe fashion that has been generally accepted. There are members of this community that leave their guns lying around their houses.

Here's the scary thing: we can afford, at a minimum, average intelligence to almost every participating member of this community (except for one) given that they can formulate a thought in written form. If these reasonable people have fallen into poor habits taking precautions with their weapons... think of the level of irresponsibility the really dumb folk exercise (ie. the babysitter who's gun fell into the 5 year old's hands).

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I would be curious to know how many gun owners have gotten on a web forum all defensive claiming that guns were awesome and gun owners were law abiding citizens being targeted by the actions of bad people and all those other things... and then their gun was involved in a gun death?

It's likely happened, yes?

My point: everything is nice and safe and cool until good times go bad. Give each gun an eternal lifespan... and each gun will eventually kill someone. It is a mathematical certainty.

Godfather.

mickeyrat wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

Caveeze wrote:

Isn't that already illegal?

certainly at airport.. That is a strictly enforced "no gun" zone!

so if there are strict laws agianst that, how the hell did it happen? laws will protect people, right?

yeah, I am being a little dick-ish and this is horrible (once again) but there are quite a few laws banning this one..

but, according to some, more laws will help :roll:

more laws mean more punks like this dickweed will have easyer access to guns thu the black market, so yeah man you nailed it.

Godfather.

see, this is an argument I ;d liek to have addressed, if someone is willing ot try.

Just HOW do these guns make their way to the black market/street?

Major robberies at the manufacturers? Individual thefts from homes?

Or is it more likely that ready access to states with lax laws (Like Ohio , every 2-3 months here in Columbus is a Gun Show "get em while you can!!!") and reporting of sales make it easy for a person to purchase weapons for places like gun shows with little accountability then transport across state lines and sold at a premium. Capitalism at its finest.


Why then is it that there are serial numbers on guns in the first place?

In my opinion , you should be required to have liability insurance on weapons and be held criminally liable if a weapon you purchased is later used in a crime , unless it can be proven that you had your weapons stored in a manner to reasonably believe they were secure but were still stolen.

guns are being brought here from other countries via the black market and doing well I'd bet for one the bad guys can't buy guns at a gun shop as easley as they can from a warehouse near the docks and the more laws that are imposed the more this kind of business will grow, some people want a gun that the government can't see..yes responsible people who don't want the government telling them what they can and can not own or having a list of the guns they do own (I don't blame them at all)

Godfather.

goingtoverona

you guys want to hold gun owners responsible if their guns are stolen and used in a crime even though they didn't commit the crime? I get it, like if someone broke into your house and stole a kitchen knife then went and stabbed a bunch of people, it's your fault for giving the guy access to a knife. or if some guy breaks into your garage and steals your golf club and then beats people to death with it, get ready for life in prison, it's your fault. nah i'm just kidding, I think that is the most ridiculous anti gun statement I've seen in a while. and you peeps come up with quite a bit of ridiculousness.
and to thirty bills, man i'm very disappointed that you of all people think that's a "practical strategy". I thought/think you're so much smarter than that. essentially saying if my guns were stolen, that i'm guilty of letting it happen and I have to prove that I didn't let it happen to not get in trouble with the law. fuck that shit.

brianlux

goingtoverona wrote:

you guys want to hold gun owners responsible if their guns are stolen and used in a crime even though they didn't commit the crime? I get it, like if someone broke into your house and stole a kitchen knife then went and stabbed a bunch of people, it's your fault for giving the guy access to a knife. or if some guy breaks into your garage and steals your golf club and then beats people to death with it, get ready for life in prison, it's your fault. nah i'm just kidding, I think that is the most ridiculous anti gun statement I've seen in a while. and you peeps come up with quite a bit of ridiculousness.
and to thirty bills, man i'm very disappointed that you of all people think that's a "practical strategy". I thought/think you're so much smarter than that. essentially saying if my guns were stolen, that i'm guilty of letting it happen and I have to prove that I didn't let it happen to not get in trouble with the law. fuck that shit.

Why is it so far fetched to expect gun owners to be responsible for keeping their guns secure? How hard is it to use gun locks and hide something that is that dangerous ? It's not.

And for the 110th time, why is it unreasonable to make gun purchases in the US difficult rather than easy?

Rather than seeing some of us as "anti-gun" can't we be seen as "pro-common sense"?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona wrote:

you guys want to hold gun owners responsible if their guns are stolen and used in a crime even though they didn't commit the crime? I get it, like if someone broke into your house and stole a kitchen knife then went and stabbed a bunch of people, it's your fault for giving the guy access to a knife. or if some guy breaks into your garage and steals your golf club and then beats people to death with it, get ready for life in prison, it's your fault. nah i'm just kidding, I think that is the most ridiculous anti gun statement I've seen in a while. and you peeps come up with quite a bit of ridiculousness.
and to thirty bills, man i'm very disappointed that you of all people think that's a "practical strategy". I thought/think you're so much smarter than that. essentially saying if my guns were stolen, that i'm guilty of letting it happen and I have to prove that I didn't let it happen to not get in trouble with the law. fuck that shit.

You are supposed to have your gun locked up. You are supposed to have your ammunition locked up in a different location than your gun. This is the responsibility that a gun owner is supposed to assume.

If there is a break-in and it is documented that your guns were taken from their place of storage that was deemed adequate... then a gun owner need not worry. If a gun 'mysteriously' goes missing... then that gun owner needs to be held accountable.

If you leave your fucking guns lying around then you might run into a problem. If you take the level of care that my father used to take... you will be fine. Why so tense over such a suggestion? You don't think that there should be some level of responsibility with owning a gun?

goingtoverona

why so tense? the complete lack of accountability is a good place to start. you want me to take the blame for the actions of some dumbass. just out of curiosity, if someone stole your car, went joyriding around town running into other cars and destroying shit and killing people, are you gonna tell the cops to send you the bill and the jail sentence because it was your car and obviously you gave them access or the thief couldn't have stolen your car right?
as far as having guns laying around, I'm not one to usually use self defense as an argument, but how the fuck am I suppose to blast a guy trying to kill me in my own house if all my guns are locked up?
so what does mysteriously go missing mean? like i have a gun sitting on my front seat and a guy comes by to steal it and we wink at each other? I'm not understanding the scenario, and can you tell me if you were me, how would you keep your guns? what would I have to do to not fall into the mysterious category?
and I absolutely think there should be responsibility when owning a gun, but what you're talking about is just madness.

to brianlux, I think we are in a state of miscommunication. I believe, strongly, that any person who leaves a gun laying around kids should be punished just for that act, if a kid kills someone or themselves then I think the penalty should be severe. if you have kids around keep your shit locked up safe, that should be the standard. but what you guys are saying is that if I don't have my guns in a bank vault in my own house that I should be punished if i'm the victim of a crime and that person hurts other people with my guns. that's just wowzers to me.
I don't think it's unreasonable at all to make gun purchases more difficult, what do you have in mind?
and both sides can't be pro common sense that's why, but i'd take anti gun over gun nut as a label any day.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

goingtoverona wrote:

you guys want to hold gun owners responsible if their guns are stolen and used in a crime even though they didn't commit the crime? I get it, like if someone broke into your house and stole a kitchen knife then went and stabbed a bunch of people, it's your fault for giving the guy access to a knife. or if some guy breaks into your garage and steals your golf club and then beats people to death with it, get ready for life in prison, it's your fault. nah i'm just kidding, I think that is the most ridiculous anti gun statement I've seen in a while. and you peeps come up with quite a bit of ridiculousness.
and to thirty bills, man i'm very disappointed that you of all people think that's a "practical strategy". I thought/think you're so much smarter than that. essentially saying if my guns were stolen, that i'm guilty of letting it happen and I have to prove that I didn't let it happen to not get in trouble with the law. fuck that shit.

You are supposed to have your gun locked up. You are supposed to have your ammunition locked up in a different location than your gun. This is the responsibility that a gun owner is supposed to assume.

If there is a break-in and it is documented that your guns were taken from their place of storage that was deemed adequate... then a gun owner need not worry. If a gun 'mysteriously' goes missing... then that gun owner needs to be held accountable.

If you leave your fucking guns lying around then you might run into a problem. If you take the level of care that my father used to take... you will be fine. Why so tense over such a suggestion? You don't think that there should be some level of responsibility with owning a gun?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona wrote:

why so tense? the complete lack of accountability is a good place to start. you want me to take the blame for the actions of some dumbass. just out of curiosity, if someone stole your car, went joyriding around town running into other cars and destroying shit and killing people, are you gonna tell the cops to send you the bill and the jail sentence because it was your car and obviously you gave them access or the thief couldn't have stolen your car right?
as far as having guns laying around, I'm not one to usually use self defense as an argument, but how the fuck am I suppose to blast a guy trying to kill me in my own house if all my guns are locked up?
so what does mysteriously go missing mean? like i have a gun sitting on my front seat and a guy comes by to steal it and we wink at each other? I'm not understanding the scenario, and can you tell me if you were me, how would you keep your guns? what would I have to do to not fall into the mysterious category?
and I absolutely think there should be responsibility when owning a gun, but what you're talking about is just madness.

to brianlux, I think we are in a state of miscommunication. I believe, strongly, that any person who leaves a gun laying around kids should be punished just for that act, if a kid kills someone or themselves then I think the penalty should be severe. if you have kids around keep your shit locked up safe, that should be the standard. but what you guys are saying is that if I don't have my guns in a bank vault in my own house that I should be punished if i'm the victim of a crime and that person hurts other people with my guns. that's just wowzers to me.
I don't think it's unreasonable at all to make gun purchases more difficult, what do you have in mind?
and both sides can't be pro common sense that's why, but i'd take anti gun over gun nut as a label any day.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

goingtoverona wrote:

you guys want to hold gun owners responsible if their guns are stolen and used in a crime even though they didn't commit the crime? I get it, like if someone broke into your house and stole a kitchen knife then went and stabbed a bunch of people, it's your fault for giving the guy access to a knife. or if some guy breaks into your garage and steals your golf club and then beats people to death with it, get ready for life in prison, it's your fault. nah i'm just kidding, I think that is the most ridiculous anti gun statement I've seen in a while. and you peeps come up with quite a bit of ridiculousness.
and to thirty bills, man i'm very disappointed that you of all people think that's a "practical strategy". I thought/think you're so much smarter than that. essentially saying if my guns were stolen, that i'm guilty of letting it happen and I have to prove that I didn't let it happen to not get in trouble with the law. fuck that shit.

You are supposed to have your gun locked up. You are supposed to have your ammunition locked up in a different location than your gun. This is the responsibility that a gun owner is supposed to assume.

If there is a break-in and it is documented that your guns were taken from their place of storage that was deemed adequate... then a gun owner need not worry. If a gun 'mysteriously' goes missing... then that gun owner needs to be held accountable.

If you leave your fucking guns lying around then you might run into a problem. If you take the level of care that my father used to take... you will be fine. Why so tense over such a suggestion? You don't think that there should be some level of responsibility with owning a gun?

You are out to lunch. We are talking about guns falling into the wrong hands through the careless actions and irresponsibility of gun owners. And you say you are tense from the complete lack of accountability? You are arguing against being accountable.

Nobody is giving the thief of your gun a free pass. They should be held accountable for whatever crime they have committed as well as the theft of your gun.

If you are at home... by your own account... there will be no theft of your gun because you are going to blast a guy trying to kill me in my own house. So, it's not likely your gun will go missing on your watch. I won't speak to the fact that having a loaded weapon inside your home at arms length has resulted in an astronomical amount of 'accidents'.

If you leave your home... it seems a prudent measure to lock your weapons in a gun safe. If you leave them by your bed and someone breaks into your house... you have not taken the necessary responsibility a weapon demands. And, because this is so... you should face some consequence. Shouldn't you?

And you mentioned something about a gun being on your front seat. Do you take a gun with you when you go out?

brianlux

goingtoverona wrote:

to brianlux, I think we are in a state of miscommunication. I believe, strongly, that any person who leaves a gun laying around kids should be punished just for that act, if a kid kills someone or themselves then I think the penalty should be severe. if you have kids around keep your shit locked up safe, that should be the standard. but what you guys are saying is that if I don't have my guns in a bank vault in my own house that I should be punished if i'm the victim of a crime and that person hurts other people with my guns. that's just wowzers to me.
I don't think it's unreasonable at all to make gun purchases more difficult, what do you have in mind?
and both sides can't be pro common sense that's why, but i'd take anti gun over gun nut as a label any day.

Honestly, I think if you're going to have a gun around the house it should- at least while your not at home or in possession of it- be kept locked up. A bank vault? If you have one, sure. Guns are dangerous. Dangerous items should be kept safe. If you kept nitroglycerin around the house I would not suggest that leaving it in a drawer would be safe. (Sorry, that's a silly come-back to the equally silly cars and kitchen knives argument.) It just seems very sensible to me to keep these things safe and locked up.

As for gun purchases being made more difficult: First of all, before even looking at gun purchase, let's look for ways better our education system, and set good examples to make for better people, less poverty, less hatred and less violence.

As for gun sales, start with make it illegal to sell automatics weapons that are made to kill many people. Those are for war (and I'd like to see an end to war as well). Secondly, better back ground checks, longer waiting periods. Thirdly, require tough fire arm safety courses that must be passed at high standards- no breeze through courses. Fourthly, more honesty about guns. Stop calling hunting a "sport". Stop glamorizing violence in our culture. Stop annoying neighbors with target practicing- that kind of activity should be restricted to isolated areas that do not disturb residents.

Any other suggestions? I'm sure I missed some here.

As for labels, that's not my thing. Call me anything but I only respond to my name.