• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
02:06AM EDT


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & HeadlinesLos Angeles International Airport shooting of TSA agent

Back to Squawk list

Los Angeles International Airport shooting of TSA agent

Submitted
(CNN) -- Parts of Los Angeles International Airport were being evacuated Friday morning after reports of shots being fired there, police said. Further details weren't immediately available, police said. (www.cnn.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 8
I just heard an eyewitness account from an air traveler who had taken off his belt and shoes for security clearance, was cowering in a corner had a shooter come past him pointing a rifle at him asking 'TSA' and moved on was travelr shook his head. I would consider that VERY aviation related.
CaptainFreedom
CaptainFreedom 2
Fair enough. I should have thought about my inital post more before posting it. I don't want to appear insensitive.
bbabis
bbabis 4
I guess I'm late to the party again, but I'll still post my comments.

Prayers for the families of the killed and wounded.

This was another senseless mental health issue regardless of what politicians and talking heads want to inject into it. Thank God he only had a rifle that would fire as fast as he could twitch his finger. I wonder when a bomb-belt will show up. Oh, that's right, they're illegal so we don't need to worry about that one happening.

The Keystone Cops and general cluster flip of a response by all law enforcement was disheartening to me and many but enlightening for the rest of the world. Over reaction, misinformation, and news media gone wild. In Israel, one quick shot would end it, and then move along people, we'll clean up, nothing to see here except what happens to idiots.

Thousands running in panic and terror, cowering in every crevice and corner that may provide safety. This defines gun control, when only criminals have guns. Obama and family is surrounded by a heavily armed force that has true ARs and mini-gun equipped SUVs no less while he wants us to only be able to shake our heads when a head-case points a rifle at us and asks, "TSA?" Hypocrisy defined.
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 3
Making it even more crazy, Century Blvd. is closed, exits to I-405, and I-105 are closed, and parts of Sepulveda are closed as well. This would make for an interesting experience at In-n-Out on Sepulveda.. Definitely aviation related indeed. Not the shooting, but the impacts to the airport and aviation from the shooting. Flights to LAX are departing from other airports. LAS and SFO are crazy right now.
sparkie624
sparkie624 8
Horrible event...

It is amazing in one of our states that has the toughest Gun Control laws could allow this to happen... Hmm maybe Gun Control doesn't work!
Av8nut
Michael Fuquay 5
Gun Control laws? I guess he forgot to turn his guns in, along with all the other criminals.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 4
No maybe to it.......it's proven.
thomj
Thomas Johnson 1
Learn from Australia's gun control measures in 1996 here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 6
I have seen the statics presented to reflect just the opposite. The number of people killed in the US by crazed gunmen wielding assault rifles is next to nothing when compared to the total murdered each year. It's sensational though when compared to everyday murder. Try fixing something that might actually might make a difference in the murder numbers; like maybe the judicial system, gangs, illegals, organized crime, etc. Thats my opinion since we're talking statics and numbers.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 2
Hmmm, maybe your right. It's the very first incident that I have read about or even heard about that involved a semi-automatic rifle. Maybe I missed something, but most incidents involve more portable hand guns. I'm suspicious of the huge increase in crimes like this one that feed the gun law issue.
btweston
btweston -3
Right. Maybe everyone should have just whipped out a piece and started shooting.

It must be wonderful to possess a mind so simple.
sparkie624
sparkie624 14
Not wishing bad luck... But I wonder what would have happened in DFW. The head line may have read "Dallas Forth Worth Airport evacuated after shots reportedly fired, Suspect shot 37 times."
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
It is. I don't worry about complicated thing; like getting criminals to give up their guns. Lol
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 6
This is a tragedy for those injured and the loved ones of a man killed. My condolences to all.

The reaction of Charlie Beck's LAPD has been horrible. A genuine waste of city resources and a total over reaching reaction to what unfortunately is an every day occurrence in the neighborhoods around LAX.

His abject disregard for the general welfare of the citizens in and around the airport for the purpose of his personal agenda shows he is not fit to be police chief. This happened around 9:30 AM. By 9:40 AM the incident was over, 23 year old New Jersey Nut Job Paul Ciancia is in custody. Fully five hours later aircraft are still sitting on the ramp and taxi ways ordered not to move. Freeway ramps closed. Century Blvd closed. Sepulveda closed. No one can get transport out of the airport. Beck has allowed them to walk a couple of miles down Century to find a hotel.

Aircraft are being diverted to alternate LAWA airfields. Flights from other areas are ordered not to take off. SFO and LAS are suffering.

Tens of thousands of people have had their lives UNECESSARILY impacted because of the poor judgment of Charlie Beck. Thousands are being held against their will inside terminals, not allowed to leave. Beck should be fired for that alone. The economic impact will topple the Billion dollar mark.

This proves gun control is worthless and airport security is nothing more than theater.
DIRECTFLT
DIRECTFLT 1
The sheeple press won't go big on the concerns you've voiced.... The public being abused by total over-reaction, for the press, they'd say... better you get used to it. There's no accountability in a soft tryanny.
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 1
I rarely "agree" with you Ric. But this time, I'm on your page.
KevinBrown
Kevin Brown 2
LISTEN LIVE : Police scanner LAPD - Citywide Dispatch and Hot Shots/Code 3 Live Audio Feed http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/3711/web
VisApp
Dave Mills 2
So many comments here, I don't know there's an appropriate place to jump in, so I'll jump in, recognizing, too, I may be flamed.

Most importantly, I join his family in mourning the loss of a father and husband.

I don't know this senseless act should be surprising, however. I'm reminded of the sign with a figure in the arms-up position for scanning with the caption, "Is this the figure of a free man?" TSA and the bulk of the so-called Patriot Act is an assault on our freedoms, Amendment IV in particular. Strip searching Grandma? Naked pictures of children? Groping? And the threat of detention if one objects, often by poorly-educated thugs in blue shirts who, as we read weekly, may feel free to rifle though and steal travelers' belongings or commit other felonies.

Post-9/11 paranoia isn't about protecting travelers, it's about protecting a government that's woefully out of control, NSA snooping only the latest example. Rather than rein in alphabet agencies like DHS, TSA and the rest, this president in fact expanded his predecessor's intrusive, imo, illegal programs. He remains unqualified to manage much of anything. (Yes, that includes ACA).

Sacrificing freedom for security may seem okay. It's not. I often wonder if the bulk of Americans are now even capable of growing a pair. Sadly, except for the occasional passenger takedown of an in-flight disturbance, I believe not. In a similar fashion to post-WWI Germany whose citizens were desperate for economic recovery at any cost, the U.S. seems desperate for "safety" at any cost. I've had Europens, whose families experienced Nazi and Stasi atrocities, express utter disbelief at the police state mentality in the Land of the Free.

Is it therefore surprising that some nut would then take his objections to the next level and start gunning down representatives of a rogue agency?
bobbell1950
Robert BELL 2
I landed at 10-07am that day, 37 minutes after the shooting. I ask what type of plan they had in place on that day. I landed at Tom Bradley next to Terminal 3.
I pose the question that at 350 Kilometres away from LAX, why they did not divert all of the international flights to other airports.
Flight VA1 from Sydney sat on the ground for 1 1/2 hours then passengers were let off, into the arrivals immigration area, then held there for nearly 3 1/2 hours before going into arrivals hall. On being allowed out of Arrivals Hall at 3-30pm 4000 people had no ground transport to hotels, car rentals, private cars etc or shuttles.
After 2 hours taxis arrived for a queue of 300 to 500 people.
I arrived at my hotel on Century Blvd at 6-45pm. Clearly LAX does not have a diastor emergency plan for incidents like this unfortunate incident.
It would have been better to place Everyone onto buses and detrain them out of the main airport precinct near Centruy Blvd and let them arrange for ground transport to pick them up. I am sorry to say the CEO at LAX should be fired for not having a better plan in place for this unpredictable event. It might never happen again, but you must be prepared.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
There's a distinct possibility that law enforcement / TSA may have been in command that day, so your wrath may be aimed at the wrong individual. Though a better plan seems like it may be a good idea.

The 'issue' was neutralized before your plane ever touched the runway. There's no good reason that arriving flights at unaffected terminals couldn't have continued operating normally, if perhaps with a bit of delay.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Perhaps it was unknown at that time if the shooter was acting alone and that there was a possibility of others showing up in other terminals????
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
Of course you are correct. After the heat of the short battle it should have been pretty clear this inept individual was just another nut case. Over reaction though is the norm today. We need to get past the idea that true terrorists are stuck in the airline/airport rut. Do we think they are so dumb they can't figure out that's where we have stacked all of our resources and everywhere else is a target of opportunity and a soft target at that?
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Just think of the reaction had another shooter shown up in another terminal and they hadn't shut the place down. They'd be getting the same sort of reaction - worse. It's a no win situation. Think back to 9-11, and how shocking it was when we became aware there was more than 1 plane involved. A second and / or third shooter wouldn't have been so out of the question.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
Big boy terrorists aren't going to shoot a few people. They are going to blow up, poison, gas, or otherwise exterminate hundreds or thousands. They have every intention of topping their last victory. I don't think they think in small terms anymore. Just as easy to get a thousand as it is to get a few using rifles. That's just me. And that's why I think the crazy TSA presence at airports is a bit of a sham not to mention a waste.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
BTW Donna, I do realize I shouldn't even post under you. Since you got that great education at H-F and I was relegated to the Heights you have me at a disadvantage. Lol
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
At least your education was good enough that you realize you shouldn't. (You crazy man!) Fact of the matter is, I don't believe I would have ever been able to qualify as a commercial pilot. You done good big guy.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Only pay I ever got for flying was from Uncle Sam. And it weren't much! Have a nice cocktail hour out there in the pacific time zone.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
In that case, my education wasn't all that great cuz when I read your profile, I read it says you have a commercial pilot's license. But if the Uncle thought you were worth training, you can't be all bad.

And by the way, how do you know what time zone I'm in?
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Having the rating doesn't mean it's how you make your living.
Your posts at some time or another gave you up as Seattle I believe. Same as Preacher has let it be known he is near Ft Smith, Ar. I haven't made any secret I'm in Ky.
Don't worry. I don't work for IRS. Lol
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
I can understand your disgust- it's the kind of a place where anyone can refer to a 23 yo homicidal maniac as a 'goofy kid' in an aviation blog. Maybe there are other places you'd prefer to live. Should you decide to do so, go with our blessings.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
There's always the option of moving.
JetMech24
JetMech24 4
Very tempting thought, getting out before the collapse, but to where? So much of the world is dependent on the US staying afloat. And will anyone attempt to move in when it falls? It's very easy for someone to just say, "if you dont like it, leave," rather than offer a rational suggestion. Attitudes like that are a part of what is destroying this country, among a large number of other things, but that goes without saying. Like Karl, I am disgusted with a lot of things in this country, more than anything, my fellow citizens, but it is very hard to leave when this country has the potential to be great again. If only the citizens would wake up and realize it... we'll see...
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
My philosophy is more along the lines of - if you're so disillusioned don't yammer away about it - do something about it. It's so simple to sit there and find fault - not so simple to find a solution. Get off your bum, run for office, work on fixing what you're so unhappy about. Regardless of all the negativity, I still love America and can think of nowhere else I'd rather live. Nowhere is perfect - and I consider myself damned fortunate to have been born an American.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
Once again, it is very easy to say, "just run for office and change things", I don't think you have any idea what so ever of what that takes, unless you are born rich. I made my choice of career when I was young, I worked hard for it, and I will not change it, I am living MY dream. THAT is the only thing that I am greatful of this country for, everything else and everybody in it makes me sick. I would not ever consider any place to be perfect and I do not expect it, but until all you sheeple realize that you keep putting nothing but idiots into power, it will not ever change, EVER! You stick to your childhood beliefs, I was raised with the same ones and it sounds great, meanwhile I will remain in reality and see this country for what it is, what it was, and what it COULD be.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 0
If you genuinely mean everything else but your dream and everybody in this country make you sick, and you're fine living the status quo feeling like that, then you really shouldn't complain. You have no one to blame but yourself for settling. It's people living here who hate it everybody in it who are ruining it. Get out of Dodge.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
I'm not fine living the status quo and I never settled. I am trying to stick it out, with hope that one day, something or someone comes along worth it to me to get behind. Everyone else are the ones settling and going with the status quo, only voting for people spoon fed to you, whining and complaining when you dont get YOUR way (and no, I do not mean YOU personally, because I do not know you), suing others at even the slightest hint that you might get a pay day, being PC instead of saying what needs to be said (and I dont mean flat out ignorance like a nameless few on here, we know who they are), chosing only one side or the other instead of a TRUE democracy, hiding behind 200+ year old ideals that simply will not work in this day and age. It's all a bunch of garbage and the majority of my fellow citizens just shovel it right in and ask for more. There is a lot more, but I'm gonna be quiet now.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Geez... Just noted a quote...

"President Barack Obama has been briefed on the shooting and will continue to be updated, but the White House had no further information at this time on what happened, spokesman Jay Carney said Friday."

All this means is that there is one more excuse for gun control, and I see they are already throwing in accurate quotes out there...

"The shooter "pulled an assault rifle out of a bag" and began shooting, police say "

Definition of Assault Riffle: "An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between semi-automatic, automatic and/or burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Note the difference between the assault rifle and the battle rifle."

Make note the AR-15 IS NOT an Assault as it is Semi-Automatic in accordance with the definition... Looks is not everything... Why can the liberal news media not figure this out.
btweston
btweston 2
Right. We as a society should frown upon psychos obtaining weapons and using them to shoot people. I don't know why you would argue against that.

You don't actually know what "liberal" means, do you? If you learned that word by listening to your radio, you're wrong.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 6
We can frown all we want but there has always been psychos and they will always find a way to kill people if that's their thing. Some of the biggest psychos I can think of are heads of countries and have people killed by the thousands. A couple nut cases with a rifle are nothing in the scheme of things.
sparkie624
sparkie624 4
Yes I do know what liberal is, I also know that they want to lead us to a socialistic society and ruining our great country. I do not think that psychos should have firearms like this... But then again, why should an incident like this affect my ability to own a fire arm. And no, I do not listen to the TV or Radio News. Just like this article here... I actually sent a comment to CNN (of which I will never hear back on) correcting their inaccuracies. I make my own judgement, and my judgement of your comment is about the same as what I think about their news reporting.

Bottom line, Why should I be limited in the firearms or weapons that I have because some idiots does something wrong with them... Trying to get rid of a particular firearm because a small group of people is stupid... Liberals like obama want to get rid of our rights to own fire arms.

Note our 2nd Amendment: Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Bearing arms is a right, not a privilege unlike driving. This guy screwed up and will be loosing his right... One thing that Doctors have to ask now is if you own a gun... Doh... Never answer yes... You will be put on a government list.
JetMech24
JetMech24 3
Yeah, it the liberals ruining the country. If that's the case, why aren't your conservatives fixing it while they have the power to? Because they have absolutely no reason to do so. Until all you people wake up and realize that ALL politicians are ruining this country it will NOT EVER STOP! And quit hiding behind a 200+ year old ideal. The 2nd amendment is completely obsolete, we have a militia, its called the National Guard. If we ever had a true "citizen" militia, you DO realize that you would be under the control of the government and military while you are in the militia? The right to bear arms was written while our military was WAY too small to take on the English over 200 years ago, there will not be another militia ever again. If the military needs that much help again, the will institute another draft before asking for a militia. The right to bear arms was written for people to be able to hunt and feed their families, not so we can have a full aresenal of ASSAULT RIFLES in our basements... the down voting without comment may now commence...
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
If you want to see such a 21st century well regulated militia, try Switzerland. All able bodied males are members until age 45 and are required to keep their assault rife handy at home. After 45, they can keep it, just have the selector switch removed so it is semi-auto.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
Very true, but I meant in this country (US) :)
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
You're talking out of both sides of you mouth. In one breath you want to trash the Constitution as a 200+ year old ideal on the other you reject a proposed fix. The only solution for you seems to be the surrender of all firearms to an out of control government. When the Japanese stated the reason they didn't invade our mainland in WWII was because they feared a gun behind every blade of grass, that's reason enough for me to maintain what we have. Currently we as a government are hiding behind regulations like HIPA while we are ignoring HIPA for our redesigned health care system and it's online record keeping and application for insurance. If the government is going to keep changing the rules for HIPA they must take responsibility for the mentally unstable owning and maintaining firearms. We just last week had a guy walk into the Garden State Plaza (mall) in New Jersey and fire into the air hoping to commit "suicide by cop". His medical records are invisible to all but the folks who administer Obama Care.

I don't have a solution, but to ban firearms is not the answer in my opinion. The guy in New Jersey was clearly mentally unstable, even to the untrained. Reasonable regulation is a necessity but even going overboard with regulation can be a virtual ban. There is no simple fix although many look for one. Why would it take over 1000 pages to establish Obama Care and we look for a 10 page fix for the perceived firearm question. Maybe if parents were totally responsible for all the actions of minor children under 18 we would have have less problems. Or maybe if we encouraged fathers to stay with families our troubles would decline.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Perhaps "Reasonable regulation" could include the first clause of the 2nd amendment.
Your last sentence merely repeats the previous one.
A responsible adult populace would take us a long way toward a solution.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
The constitution is not a regulatory document as I read it. It expresses the limits of the central government. As with any document of any age words and phrases change meaning over time. I don't thing militia means the state controled National Guard
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
My computer cut me off so I'll continue here. That section and amendment speaks of the citizenry protecting itself against a tyrannical government not that a pea shooter is effective against an AR14 or a 50 cal. what ever. But then we didn't win our independence without aid either. I won't go into percentages but if you are saying to save just one life from being "gunned down" or from suicide it's worthwhile to curtail everyone's rights, I absolutely disagree and put the onus back on law enforcement to work with what they have instead of crying the blues over what they want in addition.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
First, your computer cut-off may have been a bug in the NSA monitoring system.

That aside, I think 'well regulated militia' could include the National Guard which is a State organization. However it has been overused in absence of a standing army, it is still an organization of more local focus. Your 'save just one life' scenario is a straw man argument and one to which I do not subscribe. Consider an organization akin to that of a rural volunteer fire department, albeit a somewhat different mission. Regulated as in regularly meeting and training with a defined mission and scope. As for 'gunned down' numbers, if there was an expectation that a significant percentage of the populace was armed, trained and willing to intervene when necessary could well discourage the 'gunners'.
"An armed society is a polite society" comes to mind.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
That's why these idiots go to schools and airports. They know hardly anyone there has a weapon. They're crazy not stupid. He shouldn't have gotten 20' before the first bullets hit him.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
We're arguing the same side, Joel. I think you misread what I said. I agree with you're armed society phrase. There are so many phrases that have been used to the point of cliched. Most are valid. With the NFL's latest rule that even off duty law enforcement are not to be armed in the stadiums I fully expect an armed assault before the end of the season. "No gun zones" are a soft spot. As for NSA monitoring me, I hope I don't bore them to death.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Computer mal. Noone was listening.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
He knew that TSA agents are not armed.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Our society is a target-rich environment that way. Crowds, shock value and 15 minutes of (posthumous) fame are drivers. Our two-tier mental health system (rehab centers for the rich, back alleys off the inner-city downtown for the poor)isn't much help.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
For a minute there I thought I was reading a Top Gun script.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Nope- not a movie. Try the County hospital ER Saturday night with a full moon.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Funny thing is that some of these ER's probably have more cops on duty with guns than LAX does. I've seen the action at Cook County in Chicago.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Don't you people sleep?
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
It's past your bed time too lady.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
You had me up until your last sentence - that's it - blame the single mothers. There isn't enough room on this site for me to write all that's wrong with that mentality.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
No blame on any one but the Govt and their encouragement to bust up families. There would be enough single moms without the financial encouragement of our rich uncle. I don't know that there is a single mother out there who wouldn't welcome the help and good influence of an upstanding father figure for her children. You're looking for shadows in dark places reading more than I'm writing.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
I don't read him blaming single mothers at all, but rather possibly absentee fathers, or otherwise not-very-involved fathers. Seems like a plausible hypothesis, that would have to be verified with analysis of the facts, by verifying the familial status of the offenders in these incidents, and determining whether their is a causal relationship.

Taking Mark's statement as blaming single moms, may be bringing one's own baggage into the reading, more than what he actually wrote. I wouldn't even want to make a pronouncement as to the validity of the possible connection, without doing the research or reading someone else's summary of such investigation. That would mean neather dismiss out of hand te possibility of such a relationship, nor assume there is one.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
My personal life is nowhere in my statement and you're being incredibly presumptuous and intrusive. It's pretty simple to see, even though I'm certain it's without intent, that by saying if fathers were to stay maybe troubles would decline, clearly then, by default, it must be on the mom. I vehemently disagree with you. (Even though this particular issue has nothing whatever to do with the event.)
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
My personal life is nowhere in my statement and you're being incredibly presumptuous and intrusive. It's pretty simple to see, even though I'm certain it's without intent, that by saying if fathers were to stay maybe troubles would decline, clearly then, by default, it must be on the mom. I vehemently disagree with you. (Even though this particular issue has nothing whatever to do with the event.)
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
To be clear, are you saying that a traditional family is of no consequence in your opinion? That a single mother is equally effective as a family relationship with both parents engaged? I'm not trying to trap you but looking to see where you're coming from.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
No, not at all, Mark. I agree it's a healthier environment for a family unit to be together. What I'm saying is it doesn't necessarily equate that if dad is gone and the kid goes bad, it's because dad's gone and mom was the only parental influence.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Then, I think we agree for the most part. I wasn't saying mom's incompetent, but rather you miss less when there are 2 people working for the same thing. I found in raising mine, or doing my part in the partnership there was a critical period of time that they needed complete supervision. The things I missed she caught and vise versa. In many cases where there is only one parent things deteriorate to where there is no parent.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
I would say it may or may not be that familial status of offenders has any impact whatsoever, but it would be negligent to dismiss the possibility without investigation or analysis of the facts. Just because one wants all families to be equal and all parents to be equally effective, in real life there are probably differences.

It is better to measure and investigate and see what differences exist and what impacts if any, these differences may cause; than to fail to ask the question. Worse still to admonish others just for asking the question.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Now it's my turn to try and be clear in what you're saying: is it that you believe a husband and wife in a very very bad marriage would stay together because the possibility exists if they don't that one of their children may turn out to be an offender? And if that isn't what you're saying, then what the heck difference does measuring the impact make? And if it is, well then - ya know.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Not to be a smart aleck, but that would make me a sooth sayer. Unless it is to the detremant of the of the family as a whole the parents should probably stick it out. If on the other hand, it's a daily yelling match or worse then good sense should prevail and a change made. If you can be there to raise the children then they are owed that.
But, I don't think that has been the caase in most of the shootings. Most of the shootings have been by young people under the influence of a drug and those mostly prescribed. The Sandy Hook shooter was an unsupervised youngster under the influence of a psychotropic concoction to control a "personality disorder", I think the Columbine shooters the same. In the case of the Sandy Hook shooter it was a single mother who had disengaged.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
I'll make if easy for you. I don't know the answer to your question, nor the ones that Mark's statements bring up.

But not knowing, is not a reason to refuse to ask the questions, nor to refuse to consider the implications of one's actions, individually and as a society.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
In that case, the mother was the only one who was engaged or had been engaged in the years immediately preceding the incident at the school. The father and brother had walked away years before for whatever reasons.

Though I believe that in some other cases the family may have still been an integral unit, but it was the youngster(s)' psychological state that created the separation with others.
bbabis
bbabis 1
I generally agree with you JetMech and your point of all politicians ruining this country is true. It also points out your misunderstanding of the reason behind the "Bill of Rights." It had nothing to do with fearing England. We had just beaten them and would never have written the "Declaration of Independence" if we had fear. The "Bill of Rights" was written to protect us from government and is becoming ever more important today as the government tries to trample it.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
Both parties have brought us to where we are. They will fix nothing.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
They won't. Can't help the pessimism. Calif Cong. Dist 7: Salary 174k/yr. Political contributions to both candidates 2012 6.2M. That is just one. Too many depend on the monied interests who rent them. I don't see a solution.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Gun control shouldn't even be a federal issue. It is a local or state issue. Feds only participation is to see that local laws do not violate 2nd amnt. IMHO
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
The Declaration of Independence is what started the war. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution was written from lessons learned before and while fighting the english.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
The Bill of Rights is about fearing tyranny, and not wanting to substitute one tyrant for another. The didn't want the President to be an autocrat with the power of a monarch, and be able to oppress the people.

It's all about limiting the role of the federal government to the least necessary, to be able to maintain the union, and protect against foreign threats to the new country.
bbabis
bbabis 1
OK, quick history.
The Declaration gave a long list of things that upset the colonies about the King's rule and basically said we weren't going to take it anymore. The war started when the King chose to fight instead of granting independence which he could have done. We won. The Constitution established a government and the way we would govern ourselves. Fearing that this new government could one day become as overbearing as the one we just threw off, "The Bill of rights" was added to limit its powers.

As the government becomes more and more overbearing, the "Bill of Rights" is more important than ever.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
And much of the list of grievances in the Declaration were rights that were granted to them as English subjects which the King was disregarding.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
"The Declaration gave a long list of things that upset the colonies about the King's rule and basically said we weren't going to take it anymore. The war started when the King chose to fight instead of granting independence which he could have done." In other words, the Dec. of Independence started the war.

"The Constitution established a government and the way we would govern ourselves." Yes, they knew what they wanted in it from what they learned both before and during the war.

" Fearing that this new government could one day become as overbearing as the one we just threw off, "The Bill of rights" was added to limit its powers." Again, so we would not become a "New England", from what they knew of English rule before our independence.

Sorry if my 2 sentence summary was just entirely too simple for you to understand.
joelwiley
joel wiley 0
There are two clauses to the 2nd. Amendment. The well regulated militia part seems to get overlooked.
blake1023
blake1023 1
We as a society should frown upon the constitution getting thrown away! Where are those guns at? I thought those gun laws were supposed to keep things like this from happening.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
You're not actually saying you expect a law to 100% prevent crime are you?
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
To which part of the Constitution are you concerned with getting thrown away?
As to the gun laws, their purpose was to provide cover for gutless legislators who wanted to posture for their constituents while avoiding incurring the wrath of the National Rifle Assn.
'
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Best question of the week!
blake1023
blake1023 -1
Look liberals have had these gun laws written up for decades. They wait until some moron who is not part of the NRA, or the tea party, to pull out these gun laws. The sad part is this president and certain governors have used the events of Sandy Hook and the murder of Kindergarteners and the Theater shooting to advance their liberal utopia of gun grabbing. Because these gun laws wouldn’t pass congress any other day. Crying shame! But with any liberal agenda you're only supposed to look at the good intentions and not the results.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
You mean liberals like Jackie Speier who know nothing about guns?
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
The AR-15 is absolutely an assault rifle, anyone that says any different is trying to justify having one. It is a semi-auto, cartridge fed, pistol gripped rifle, the very definition of assualt rifles. Even the the name AR means Assault Rifle. If you REALLY think it is not, you should sue Colt for selling it and marketing it as an assault rifle, if you're right, you could probably get millions.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
The AR15 is no more an assault rifle than a Ruger 10/22. You're "judging a book by it's cover". I can buy a semi-automatic rifle that uses the identical ammunition and the same magazine, shape it as a target rifle call it an AR15-2 and it woulden't be counted as an assault rifle. Like lawmakers, you're looking for an easy one sentenance fix, and God forbid that law enforcement would have to look at a law book and enforce what's there.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
It would be a assault rifle, but a fairly bad one as the pistol grip is advantageous for an assualt rifle. An assault rifle does not need to be full auto to be an assault rifle, that just makes it a better one.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
You're allowing a definition by the state of California to speak for the entire country. I don't live in California and don't accept their premiss nor definitions. The shape of AR15 stock allows it to be pointed in a general direction more quickly, from there it's. to use Sparkie624 term, "spray and pray". Certainly, you can aim an AR15, but that's not it's biggest advantage as I see it and there are some advantages as well as disadvantages to the system.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
No, I was using MY definition of an assualt rifle, I dont have any idea what CA law states, I don't live there. As I stated in a previous comment, anyone that says a AR15 is not an assualt rifle is justifying having one or making an excuse for those that do.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
No offense, Jet, seriously, but you do like to generalize.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Yup. What Donna said. I don't own one nor do I much care if you or anyone else does. I'll fight for the right to own one and not outlaw it because of its looks or whether it has a pistol grip or a hole for your thumb
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
I will not say whether or not I own one, as I don't wish to be added to some stupid list some where, but I will tell you that if they are ever outlawed, I would hand it over as it servers absolutely no purpose to me other than amusement.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
There are basic and obvious differences between assault rifles, target rifles, sniper rifles, hunting rifles, etc..., IMHO if anyone thinks that an AR15 is not an assault rifle, they have no business owning a gun, even the MAKER of the weapon calls it what it is. There is no generalization.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
And what's wrong with amusment and I'll include competitive shooting? You do what you want with your 'stuff". Just, please don't tell me what to do with mine for the good of society when I'm not a threat. The only reason to take away the defenense from one man is to make him volnerable to your own planned attack.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Well, I was talking about your comment that "ANYONE that says" etc. Plus, I was just teasing. Sort of.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
I see, well that's mostly to avoid people thinking that I am attacking them personally as I don't want to offend anyone, but also leaves it open for anyone that it applies to.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
I got a few of these so called assault rifles and they are ok. Fun to plink with. I'm on the verge of stepping up to a Barrett. Then I'll have something. The 10 k is a little hard to swallow though.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Because they lie to support their political agenda. Used to be confined to politicians but not anymore.
joelwiley
joel wiley -1
California Codes and Regulations:
30515. (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, "assault weapon" also
means any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine
with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

I think the AR-15 fits the definition in LA.
sparkie624
sparkie624 4
I could care less what California code defines it as.... With all the morons out there most would buy that crap... The government in CA is really messed up... I mean really, to be such an all mighty state and have more people on Welfare than working, and regulate everything... So many people out there are quite blind.... The rest of the free world disagrees with CA, and therefore the definition does not apply to the reset of the world. The AR-15 IS NOT an ASSAULT WEAPON.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Just saying that it fits the description in Calif. Your mischaracterization of Ca Gov as 'really messed up' greatly understates the case.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum -2
Respectfully, I'm wondering why that's such an important issue. So they called it the wrong thing. Not great reporting, but what's new and so what?
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 5
It's only important because the government and media has branded them as evil rifles. In reality any of these shootings could have been accomplished with everyday standard rifles or shotguns. sensationalize to push your political agenda.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum -1
Pu-leeze!
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 5
These shooters usually try and use these type rifles mainly because they have watched too much TV. In reality a real shooter could use a six shooter pistol and get six kills. These guys just spray and miss with most shots. That's why I say the type of weapon has little significance on the outcome. Not trying to change your personal view, just pointing out what happens as opposed to what could happen. Don't have to use an Assault Rifle to commit mass murder.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Yup.. The AR15 is a spray and pray weapon...
AWAAlum
AWAAlum -2
My remark was directed at your "sensationalize to push your political agenda"...it seems as though no matter what the thread is concerning here on Flight Aware, someone at some time always, ALWAYS has to blame it on political agendas. Did it ever occur that maybe that guy was just plain nutso and had absolutely no real reason for what he did and that it likely had absolutely nothing even close to a political agenda? And by the way, thanks for not trying to change my personal view - lol - you're a prince!
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 5
Wasn't talking about nutso's agenda. Media's agenda; political and self serving. IMHO.
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
Yes he was plain nuts... Until he proved otherwise he had his 2nd amendment lights just like me and you. It is the political arena that brought all of this to attention and forced the un-needed regulation. Look at where regulations are the tightest and you will find the highest crime... Look at Texas.... Don't mess with Texas.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 4
I was raised in Chicago. They are a poster child for failed gun laws. Lol
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
(pssst-where in chgo?)
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Mostly far south subs but quite a few years blocks from Midway.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Remember "Stew Row?"
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Rode my bike almost every day to watch airplanes. Left the neighborhood before old enough to have interest in "stews". Lol
Got my private ticket at MDW though in 1966 at age 19. Was it near the airport?
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Yeah, a few blocks east. All airline personnel - party central!!!
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Damn!! I lived at 62nd and Kenneth. Was living there in '59 when the cargo plane crashed. In what time frame were you partying there.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Probably around 1962-64...somewhere around there. Raised in South Shore and fam moved to Flossmoor in the early 50's...also a south suburb, like you.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
I was in Bloom HS at that time.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
You're kidding. You lived in the Heights?
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Yup. Couple months ago went to the street party in the dago neighborhood "the hill".
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
I dated a guy from the hill. lol (i'll bet we're making a lot of ppl crazy. too bad there isn't somewhere to send an off thread convo.)
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Maybe that guys name is Wallace
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
There is. But we have to ask Preacher how. He has sent them to me before. TTYL
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Go under Discussion instead if Squawks. You'll find a messaging system that allows you to send messages to individual(s).
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Did that! Thx.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Quite frankly, I would rather be up against someone in a fire fight. They take the AR15 as their weapon of choice, and I will take a 30-06. I will only need one well placed round and can do it. Hide, bullet proof vest.. No problem. The AR15 is over rated and not that accurate even with a scope and is not an evil or assault rifle. It just looks mean.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
If you look through the reports you find that most gun crimes are committed with hand guns not so called assault rifles or other "long guns". The airport incident at LAX last week is unique in that an AR 15 was used. Shotguns were used at the Washington Navy Yard and Perry Hall High School and Perry Hall might have been a misfire and true accident notwithstanding the shotgun shouldn't have been there. There is only a scattering of incidents where so called assault rifles or other long guns have been used. The politicians and gun control advocates have hyped the use of assault rifles unrealistically, in my opinion.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
The LAX shooter probably grabbed the weapon which was handiest to him.
As was the case in the recent Reno Middle School incident.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Actually gun crimes and violent crime are disproportionately committed by young minority men also disproportionately in neighborhoods with lower socioeconomic status. It seems np knd wants to admit so publicly.

On the one hand, it's un-PC to differentiate between different people, whether the differences are by racial or economic of geographic measurements. On the other hand, people living safety away from the wrath of the violence in crime-riddled neighborhoods, tend to worry less about those stuck living amidst that violence, than the concerns of their own lives and their own neighborhoods.

So people either don't acknowledge the inequality, or don't care. If they did, they'd be much more concerned about the constant violence in those neighborhoods, that have lots more causalities than the occasional incidents in 'our' world, which result in disproportionate media coverage, that doesn't correspond in any way to the actual numbers of injured persons.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
It is more than that... CNN and other news medias are trying to put ALL rifles into the category of ASSAULT rifles... that includes hunting rifles... The new CA law also is doing just that.. Many Hunting Rifles.... If one part of the article is wrong, the entire article is wrong. No almost... It is wrong none the less. I feel for people who got shot, and I personally wish the one firing the gun had be fatally shot as well... WHY you may ask... In realtiy some legal eagle will find a way to get him off on some sort of metal case, and at some point will get back out into society... All of that costs money that we cannot afford. If he gets the Death Penalty then he will be on death row for 20 or more years and then at the last minute get some sort of repeal because some idiot will determine that it is cruel and unusual punishment.
jaypek
Phil Knox 1
Report should have read "Friday" not "Thursday"!
ASUHornet
Erik Hatcher 1
When shots are being fired at you from a semiautomatic rifle, do you honestly think someone is going to sit there and figure out what kind of weapon it is? From this incident, the gunman was able to make it through the security checkpoint area and get through a good part of the concourse. I think any tactician would agree that was a somewhat successful assault.

[This poster has been suspended.]

joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Ignore those voices in your head. Had they any sense at all, they would have left long ago.
sparkie624
sparkie624 6
LOL, why ignore it... There is more truth in that statement than in the obama free health care plan.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
Phil should get his own talk show. He would be good competition for the existing platforms. Lol
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
U think he's Donahue?
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
He's way better.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
He's "THE PHIL"
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 0
BTW, read Karl's comment. And he chided you over NAMBLA. Lol
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
I would support him long before I would support what he have now.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
Couldn't possibly be worse. Phil says what he thinks instead of lying.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
I know, look at posts from the past year from him about god. I said NAMBLA since it seems like the guy was fleeing from child porn charges.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
I got it. Took it as humor. Either way, I laughed.

[This poster has been suspended.]

WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
It isn't about God. It's about berating anyone with a different opinion. Disagreeing and calling someone an asshole and an inbreed is not the same thing. Anyway, THRUTT made that look silly.

[This poster has been suspended.]

btweston
btweston 1
Yeah... Probably not.
Av8nut
Michael Fuquay 0
If someone touched my daughter or wife, I might snap too.
Av8nut
Michael Fuquay 0
I guess he forgot to check his gun at the door.
blake1023
blake1023 0
I'm just shocked with all the liberals on this site, they haven't blamed it on the Tea Party yet. I mean the Tea party gets blamed for EVERYTHING. Its nice those wonderful gun laws working in California.
joyfulsongster
J. mueller -1
If y'all want to know why this is all happening, I suggest you go read Deuteronomy Chapter 28. Read it very slooooowly. It's all there.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 10
Happening at one of the busiest airports in the country, an entire terminal evacuated, full ground stop, ATC impacted, possible diversions of international flights to either KSFO or KONT, and you're wondering if this is related to aviation?

Think about the impacts again, and ask yourself that same question.
Kawaiipoint2
Kawaiipoint2 1
Shut up, moron.
CaptainFreedom
CaptainFreedom -5
It see nothing to do with aviation. I see another idiot with a gun, who could just as easily have done this at a train station, theater, whatever. I am not trying to belittle the crime. What I am saying is reacting with pandemonia, in this manner, is PRECISELY what the perp is looking for....big headlines, a closed airport, general mayhem. Potential wannabe idiots are watching this and salivating at the prospect of a copycat crime. How many people have been murdered in the streets of LA today. Should they shut down the city and impose martial law? Law enforcement can generally tell very quickly whether they are dealing with an organized ring of terroritsts vs 1 idiot with a gun. I pray that the dangerous situaion in the slies caused by this unnecessary airport closure does not result in a real aviation accident. ATCs are under enormous pressure right now.
vanbess
vanbess -6
TSA was the shooter -- guess we have to update gone postal to gone TSA
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 6
And you know this, how? What's your source?
vanbess
vanbess -3
Multiple news stations -- I have never thought highly of thousands standing around. Most are child molesters and perverts who want to fondle the traveling public. because they have the government authority
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 3
Your multiple newstations got it wrong. From the the LAPD Police chief:

While several local news outlets are reporting they've been told that there have been one or two fatalities, airport Police Chief Patrick Gannon just told reporters he does not know that to be true.

We believe at this point that there was a lone shooter," airport Police Chief Patrick Gannon just told reporters. He said the gunman "came into Terminal 3 ... pulled an assault rifle out of a bag and began to open fire in the terminal."

Gannon said the gunman moved around the terminal, including into the security checkpoint area, before he was "engaged in gunfire" by airport police who were able "to successfully take him into custody."

"We have multiple victims that have been shot and have been transported" to hospitals, along with the gunman, Gannon said.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/11/01/242364425/incident-at-los-angeles-airport-reports-of-shots

Love how your "news stations" keep jumping hte gun for the sake of over-sensationalism to draw in viewers, at the cost of facts.
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 2
Shooter was *NOT* TSA. From the TSA themselves:


This statement from a TSA official: "Earlier this morning, a shooting occurred at Terminal 3 at Los Angeles International Airport. Multiple Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) were shot, one fatally. Additional details will be addressed by the FBI and local law enforcement who are investigating the shooting."

A spokesman for the American Federation of Government Employees, the union that represents TSA workers, says: "We have received first-hand confirmation from a reliable source that the shooter was not a TSO."

[This poster has been suspended.]

Shadowstarz
Shadowstarz 10
Dude, you have issues.
aeronicapilot
Andrew Duncan 10
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
Maybe not cool, but I have never seen Phil sugar coat his comments. My guess is he really don't care about being cool.
Av8nut
Michael Fuquay 5
Simmer down, Phil. I think everyone in this country is fed up with our politicians. But I'm not sure we're at the point of pulling out our muskets. Close, though.
btweston
btweston 3
Come to think of it, you should probably be careful next time you feel like shitting out your mouth. Talking about shooting congresswomen is not exactly protected speech.

[This poster has been suspended.]

blake1023
blake1023 1
Phil nothing he says makes sense.
btweston
btweston 1
Er... Yeah. Let's take a moment to celebrate this guy's Second Amendment rights.

Idiot.
bluesnote
Adam Margolis 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

First TSA Agent Killed in Action

Unfortunately, the shooting this morning at KLAX was a fatal one involving TSA agent who was just reassigned from the Mid-west days earlier.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/01/21277650-gunman-opens-fire-at-lax-killing-tsa-worker-and-wounding-others
AWAAlum
AWAAlum -1
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

TSA Officer Killed in LAX Shooting, Suspect in Custody

The shooting began around 9:20 this morning, killing one TSA agent and wounding 6 others.

http://gma.yahoo.com/tsa-agent-killed-lax-shooting-suspect-custody-181655831--abc-news-topstories.html?vp=1
glabady738
Galen Labady -2
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Gunman opens fire at LAX, killing TSA worker and wounding others

A gunman opened fire Friday inside a terminal at Los Angeles International Airport, killing one Transportation Security Administration worker, wounding as many as three others and sending terrified travelers diving for cover and fleeing onto the tarmac, authorities and witnesses said.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/01/21277650-gunman-opens-fire-at-lax-killing-tsa-worker-and-wounding-others?lite
glabady738
Galen Labady 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Gunman left anti-government note, targeted TSA

Authorities found an anti-government note next to the man who allegedly opened fire at LAX on Friday, according to law enforcement sources.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lax-shooting-gunman-left-antigovernment-note-targeted-tsa-20131101,0,1865003.story
jaypek
Phil Knox -4
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Report: Incident prompts closure of terminal at LAX!

LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles Airport Police have confirmed an incident Thursday prompted the evacuation of a terminal at the airport.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/01/los-angeles-airport-terminal-incident/3351473/