Shooting at Los Angeles airport: suspect and TSA agent wounded, flights grounded

boing
81

I said nothing about the lunatic or what he cared about. I merely confirmed that Safeway has a no-guns policy, and that the general pattern of mass shootings tend to occur in areas where the shooter is unlikely to immediately encounter an armed person, since they are very often in areas posted as no-gun zones.

So, pray tell, why do you seem to think that the mods should shut me up, or, as you say, “Torpedo the militia, troll creeps” ??

Sounds like you’re the one advocating the use of violence. . .

82

Can we stop using that term, please? It is a loaded term that has been used to stigmatize and marginalize people. Whether or not the shooter had issues with mental health does not mean that we should use terms that are little else than slurs.

83

Oh certainly, internet, extremist gun trollies are most definitely the real victims of violence here, apart from the victims that actually are dying in real life thanks to the efforts of lobbyists and their legions of extremists that carry water for them. Yes, you are the victim here. Not the actual dead people. Not the mentally ill shooter. Not the family members. YOU.

1 Like
84

If this kind of anti-logic doesn’t soundly discredit this “gun free zone” myth/bullshit then I don’t know what does. Bravo.

1 Like
85

I guess I have trouble thinking of a gun-free zone as a place where there are armed security guards at all times.

2 Likes
86

Pro-gun nuts and anti-gun nuts have this in common: They’re both nuts, and they both frame the debate in the wrong light.

Can we reduce deaths, injuries, and violent crime by arming everyone in America with an ak47? If so then sign me up. Can we do said by getting rid of all guns, and chopping both hands off of anyone caught with one? Cool, I’m onboard if so.

Too bad both sides seem to have grafted the issue onto their ego and can’t figure out a rational way forward. All of the bloody bickering politicians are first against the wall… regardless of whether I have to use a rifle or a 9 pound hammer.

1 Like
87

As someone else pointed out, it was outside. Arizona lets anyone carry concealed weapons without a permit and guns are permitted almost everywhere (except doctor’s offices and some private businesses). In fact, there was a guy at a nearby Walgreens carrying a gun. He says that he was “lucky” that he did not shoot the person who had taken the gun away from the actual shooter and that he only shoved the guy into a wall: Joe Zamudio and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting: How an armed hero nearly shot the wrong man.

4 Likes
88

I’m confused. The guy is crazy, but sane enough to choose a theater purely because it was a gun-free zone. He specifically chooses a place where people should not have guns, but still goes to the trouble of wearing “a gas mask, a load-bearing vest (not to be confused with a bulletproof vest), a ballistic helmet, bullet-resistant leggings, a bullet-resistant throat protector, a groin protector and tactical gloves” and throwing two canisters containing gas/smoke. ( Aurora shooting - Wikipedia )

Interesting.

2 Likes
89

It seems gun enthusiasts are worried about the same thing non-enthusiasts are: getting shot by a deranged person with a gun. The two camps differ on how to deal with this fear.

90

I predict a mandated screening before the person is screened before the final screening. By then, 99% of the population will be screened out of being able to fly.

91

A consensus on what ‘better’ is , that’s the rub…

92

Shooter lived in an apartment on 1690 Paris Street. I can’t find 7 closer movie theaters. In fact, the theater he chose seems to be the closest real theater (there is one “theater” slightly closer, but it’s really a restaurant/theater). And if he chose that theater because of it’s no guns policy, why all the body armor?

4 Likes
93

Or a firearm-shaped pastry.

94

You missed the pistol grip, the barrel shroud (its the shoulder thing that goes up), and what may be a detachable stock.

Its also laughably ugly, and should be banned for purely aesthetic reasons. Which is good… because thats exactly what the AWB bill is mostly about. Banning weapons for aesthetic reasons.

95

Well, if banning things for purely aesthetic reasons is fine, can we start with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s hair ??? (evil grin)

And Yugos. Assuming there are any left on the roads. .

Zastava_Yugo_311_1116cc.jpg1600×1200 765 KB

That is one SERIOUS attack on the senses. . .

96

FYI the Switzerland thing is mostly myth propagated by NRA types who don’t know better. Just ask a Swiss person.

They’re not allowed ammo for one thing:

In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still store ammunition at home today

Most (edit: many, some - ‘most’ is likely exaggerating) of the (dwindling) service folk turn them in (as they have the option) and the ones that don’t have them locked in a box in their basement (I assume), unloaded.

Nice try though - funnily enough I watched an NRA mouthpiece get shot down with the same fallacy just this morning on Reddit. Did they put it in a newsletter or something?

I agree though that it’s a culture thing. There’s a big difference between letting an ex-serviceman who’s been trained to use a weapon keep it at their homes, and letting any tom dick or harry tote a dangerous weapon (in many states you can even have a gun on your person, like it’s some kind of war-zone).

In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the USA.

So a smaller proportion of better trained people, with no ammo.

Let’s face it, the constitution allows guns to prevent tyranny. So why stop at guns? You’ll also need missiles, armoured vehicles - perhaps some kind of small scale nuclear device. If you’re going to do it then do it properly - all a handgun will do is help you step over your fellow countrymen. I’m an outsider, so it’s not up to me anyway, but I actually think your gun control stuff is going in the wrong direction. Although I don’t think any of your citizens should have guns, given your constitution (which I believe is used as the sole reasoning for having guns) surely you’re more justified having an assault rifle than a small-gauge hand gun?

4 Likes
97

Taste is a funny thing. I think that car is beautiful; love the stocky proportions, lines, everything. I want one (I have a bit of a thing for 60s-80s cars).

2 Likes
98

The citizenry should be as well armed as the constabulary. If the coppers can have automatic weapons and armored vehicles, then we should too.

99

Crazy and stupid are two different things. They don’t always go together.

1 Like
100

You got a couple of things wrong. Swiss are allowed to own guns, in addition to their government issued ones. The ammo stopped being given out, and was returned, but nothing prevents Swiss from buying ammo. Or guns. They have background checks, they have private sales, they have similar rules about semi autos. Single shot and bolt action guns are unrestricted. They see shooting as a sport, and a fun one. The guns they are issued are very nice automatic rifles. Assault rifles even.

By culture I mean a rural vs an urban culture. If you live out in the sticks, having a gun becomes a utilitarian thing. Hunting and sporting are two other decent reasons to have a gun.

Switzerland has a citizen militia, vs a standing military. If we actually were serious about the second amendment, we’d have something very similar. I’d personally love to see that in the US. Join the militia, get trained, etc. Fight in defense of your country… in your goddamn country only.

So anyway… if the Swiss were so inclined, they could shoot each other up. No prohibitive gun laws, regulations, or restrictions keep that from happening. The reason they don’t shoot each other up is not because access to guns and ammo are restricted.

As for our constitutional right to bear arms… its more like people have the right to bear arms and the government can’t take it away. That is the present interpretation of the second amendment. Doesn’t mean anything though… people interpret things to support their goals.

But… the government can’t restrict your ownership of arms. So yeah… constitutionally, you are probably right. Tanks, planes, private armies… go fucking nuts according to the constitution. Luckily no one takes the constitution seriously.

The concealed handgun people… lots of them are radicals and have their own scary subculture. They also tend to think everyone is out to get them (thus the need to carry a sidearm). I’ve never met something like a victim of a violent crime that got a sidearm to feel safe. Its always wanna be paramilitary types that seem to have them.

Personally… I’m for semiauto and bolt action rifles and shotguns only, available only by background check. No handguns except for people who can’t use two handed arms to hunt or sport shoot, then restrict them. Thats my preferred gun law.

That coupled with an actually effective means to incapacitate assailants without killing them, and we would be golden…
But the closest thing… a taser, can only be carried by law enforcement. I can get a permit to conceal a .454 Casull handcannon, but tasers are illegal for citizens to carry, as far as I know.