Front Page  »  

TSA agent dies in shooting at LAX

November 1, 2013

byauuxdccaas0av-1A man opened fire inside a Los Angeles International Airport terminal Friday morning, killing a TSA agent and injuring other people.

The gunman shot his way through a security checkpoint around 9:20 a.m. Friday, The gunman then continued to fire shots as he wandered deep into LAX Terminal 3, according to Los Angeles World Airport Police Chief Patrick Gannon.

The incident ended in a shootout with airport police that left the gunman wounded and in critical condition.

A total of seven people suffered injuries during the shooting, and emergency personnel transported six individuals to hospitals, according to the Los Angeles Fire Department.

One witness named Jose told KTLA that the gunman looked like a TSA agent.

“He was dressed in all blue,” Jose said. “He looked like a TSA agent or security. He blended in with them.”

Jose said that he built a wall of luggage to shield himself and his wife from the shooter, before running away from the gunman.

The injured gunman is the only suspect in the shooting. He was carrying a long gun and a handgun.

 


Loading...
Subjects:                 
Related:


26 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Well, lets certainly not address the proliferation of firearms and mental illness. Is this simply another “acceptable loss” in the absence of gun control?

When is enough?


0

Well I must have missed the mental illness. There so far has been nothing said or mentioned that he had mental illness. They have said he had an interest in some radical ideas and when he had some rambling texts to family in the last couple days, the family reacted appropriately and contacted authorities.


0

anybody who saunters in to a mass transportation facility with a weapon is a demonstration of mental illness IMHO


0

True but my point is that a lot of people are looking for warning signs.


Sometimes they are there but a lot of times they aren’t unfortunately, which makes this harder to prevent.


0

No, if it’s an illegal action then its criminal behavior.


Criminal behavior is not legal mental illness.


Mental illness is a subjective term defined by doctors and lawmen practicing medicine and law.


The Nazi’s generalized too, and look where that lead….social fascism and the holocaust.


0

No discussion about guns is complete without someone minimizing the Nazi’s and misunderstanding history.


0

I guess I’m trying to figure out what “gun control law” would have prevented/stopped this from occurring. Based on a photo of the gun I saw on nbcnews(dot)com, it was a Colt 6920 (banned in California) with a 30-round magazine (banned in California). Gun control laws work really well don’t they?


Unfortunately, in some cases, there is absolutely nothing that can stop certain violent crimes. No amount of laws, mental healthcare, or bans can stop crime. I could get in my car tomorrow and plow into a farmers market at 60 MPH and there is no law or ban that could have stopped me. As painful as it is, we can’t legislate away crime.


0

Well put, Paso wino.

“No amount of laws, mental healthcare, or bans can stop crime.”

Advocates seeking laws against the Second Amendment know this also.

But disarming the public, by any means, is their goal.


0

I agree as well — but to be fair, not all those advocating laws restricting Second Amendment rights are primarily closet fascists. Some at the very top qualify but many are simply fooled into advocacy by a combination of ignorance on the subject and propaganda which feeds them misinformation while ignoring the negative unintended consequences.


0

This is not Calguns. We all have heard the weak sauce arguments from the closet fascists with the circular misinformation pro gun logic.


You all can stop repeating yourselves and reassureing each other that you are the word on “our freedom’s”.


“fooled into advocacy by a combination of ignorance on the subject and propaganda which feeds them misinformation”


Seriously, calguns is that way >>>>>>


0

Agreed pasowino.


Gun control is congruent with attempting to reduce drunk driving by taking cars away from sober people.


While law enforcement is absolutely wonderful at traffic enforcement and solving crimes, they are really lousy at preventing crime. Armed law abiding citizens can prevent/stop crimes much more effectively.


.


0

choprzrul says: “While law enforcement is absolutely wonderful at traffic enforcement and solving crimes, they are really lousy at preventing crime. Armed law abiding citizens can prevent/stop crimes much more effectively. ”


Bullshit.


0

Every day in this county alone, thousands of people break speed limit laws. So why do we have those laws? Because, as a society, we’ve decided that public safety is enhanced by limiting how fast you may choose to drive. The public good outweighs an individual’s freedom drive 100 mph. Of course we can’t stop all crime. But we enact laws to promote public safety. It’s common sense. We don’t limit the easy availability of butcher knives even though people sometimes get stabbed. Why? Because the evidence shows it’s relatively rare. Unfortunately, the annual casualty statistics from gun use is unacceptably high. I don’t think more guns, or more lethal guns, is a sane response. You may disagree. But spare me the “disarming the public…is their goal” nonsense, Lame. Gov. Jerry Brown just vetoed a proposed state law banning automatic weapons. Yeah, we’re realllll close to disarming the public.


0

You state “I don’t think more guns, or more lethal guns, is a sane response.” While I totally respect your right to feel that way and to speak up regarding those feelings, I must point out that your feelings are not based in reality.


May I present a Harvard Gun Study: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/


And, Dr. John Lott’s work that is in its 3rd edition: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660


Scientifically, more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens results in less crime.


.


0

Good links. Of course the anti gun people will NEVER be satisfied no matter what anyone says.


And again for the record, anyone that wants to call me one of the gun nuts, I own no guns but have no problem with people owning them.


0

It is your activity not your ownership that places you within the “gun nut’s”


Also we have seen those old links before, they are on the talking points. It is a pointless excerise shoveling one facist link after another because the regular citizens stopped listening long ago.


0

Ah another I know better on second amendment rights than the fore fathers that wrote it. Talk about B.S.


I love your type. To make arguments they label…..facists, Nazi’s, neo-cons etc. Yep good ol left wing scare tactics. Yea I used it, label. I only use after others do.


Watch out the boogy man is probably under your bed.


0

Homer, I think we have a lot that we agree upon. However, I think that you are wrong here. You need to take a more careful and critical look at the “casualty statistics” for a start. Even if you still consider the relationship of gun ownership to gun casualties to be too high, there is still the issue of how to address the problem. The more radical propositions could create a dangerously large split among citizens of this country and criminalize a huge number of people who will not submit to this attack on their rights.


I won’t even get into the “deterrent” benefits of an armed populace on criminals AND wanna-be tyrants. There are no universally respected statistics on that so it comes down to what individuals fear most — random attacks by occasional nut cases or persistent gradual encroachment on personal liberties by overbearing representatives of authority. We probably differ here too.


0

Homer your argument with cars is way off. The laws on cars are for safety in use of them not in limiting them.


Oh and on knifes, they are easily available but there are limits there to. Ever try and buy a switchblade?


0

switchblade knife


0

Don’t know without trying to buy from site. The laws very greatly.


Interesting in researching. I thought it was totally illegal. Some states yes, some states no. In a lot of states (CA being one of them) you can own but only if under two inches in length.


Another interesting, while you can buy in a lot of states you would have to buy from a in state seller. U.S. law prohibits selling across state lines, so the link you provided would depend on where the seller is located.


0

Just for the record, Brown vetoed a ban on semi automatic center fire rifles. Automatic weapons have been banned since the National Firearms Act of 1934.


0

Your speed limit example is more akin to the law making murder and robbery illegal, not the gun-banning laws. If you would like a better example to gun-banning, how about all those laws banning tobacco, alcohol, and vehicle ownership to enhance public safety. After all, more suffer at the hands of tobacco, alcohol and vehicles (all individually) than all gun crimes combined.


Apples to apples, Homer.


0

“number” of laws not “amount” of laws. Yes some crime can be legislated away. That is what laws are for.


0

Laws are for law abiding citizens.


Criminals, they don’t pay much attention to them.


.


0

laws are for seeing to it they do in the future. that’s why they call them laws.


0