×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Gunman Opens Fire At LAX

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the this-keeps-happening dept.

News 520

McGruber tips news that today at 9:30AM PST, a man removed an assault rifle from a bag at Los Angeles International Airport and opened fire. The shooter moved into the screening area, and then further into the terminal. One TSA agent was killed; roughly six more people were injured. The gunman was a ticketed passenger. (Early reports suggested he worked for the TSA — this does not seem to be the case.) Police engaged him in gunfire, and he's now in custody. His motive is unknown at this time.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

520 comments

damn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304333)

make up your fucking mind
http://news.slashdot.org/submission/3089839/tsa-worker-goes-postal-at-lax-shoots-seven-coworkers?sdsrc=rel

Re:damn (4, Insightful)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 6 months ago | (#45304569)

There tends to be much confusion right after events like these. Give it time.

Re:damn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45305043)

There tends to be much confusion right after events like these. Give it time.

Son, wisdom like you express above isn't welcome around here,
because we like to make irrational stupid comments rather than
actually think things through. Of course this is an idiotic way to discuss
things but that is the way Slashdot regulars do things.

Shooting TSA agents (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304335)

Doing gods work.

Re:Shooting TSA agents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45305019)

Amen.

Re:Shooting TSA agents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45305035)

Probably a /. Snowden obsessed troll - Paul Ciancia

Ahhhhhhhhhh! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304337)

I just dumped all over your hops & drems! Why'd you even place them in my silverware drawer, anyway? That's where normal people dump! Thanks to your stupidity, your hops & drems are now... One With Dump!

Pretty Obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304361)

Some TSA officer obviously handled his jibblets a little too roughly.

Great... (5, Funny)

TWX (665546) | about 6 months ago | (#45304363)

Just what we need, now we'll have a security checkpoint before our security checkpoint to prevent you from bringing a gun into the security checkpoint.

Turtles all the way down...

Re:Great... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304381)

Yo, dawg.

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304525)

Just what we need, now we'll have a security checkpoint before our security checkpoint to prevent you from bringing a gun into the security checkpoint.
Turtles all the way down...

Turtle = TSA Agent?

Re:Great... (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 6 months ago | (#45304549)

More like, prepare for this to look like a warzone as airports start to resemble third-world combat zones. Soldiers with assault rifles on their arms staking out every airport entrance and jeeps on patrol around the airport every hour of the day. This is exactly the sort of justification they needed to ratchet things up.

That said, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think even a TSA agent deserved to be murdered in cold-blood.

Re:Great... (2, Insightful)

zlives (2009072) | about 6 months ago | (#45304743)

or we could have a rational discussion about gun control...Nah

Re:Great... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304789)

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

Re:Great... (0, Troll)

craigminah (1885846) | about 6 months ago | (#45304837)

No...the perpetrator used an "assault rifle"...which people in the military call "small arms" which are banned for hunting deer with because of their inability to kill them cleanly. I wonder if the weapon type will change like the DC Naval Yard shooting where the weapon was initially erroneously reported as an "assault rifle" then changed to a Vice-President Biden-approved shotgun. Let's avoid knee-jerk gun control and let's instead focus on the problems that cause people to lash out...most likely shitty jobs, shitty attitudes, and stupid politics that screw up people's lives and livelihoods. If guns were outlawed, the perpetrator would use a so-called "assault knife" or "assault baseball bat" to commit the crimes with.

Re:Great... (5, Insightful)

intermodal (534361) | about 6 months ago | (#45304951)

Assault rifles don't exist until someone commits assault with a rifle. At that point, any rifle is an assault rifle.

Any time I see a news article or press release with the term "assault rifle" in it I know I'm dealing with someone who doesn't know anything at all about guns. A quick scan of TFA, BTW, does not name or picture the weapon. For all we know, it could be a deer rifle with a black stock, a Warsaw Pact semiauto AK, any of dozens of M4/M14/M16/AR15 semiauto clones, or a really tricked out Ruger 10-22 (and a lucky shot on the one kill). A more attentive reading might tell us more, but I doubt it.

Re:Great... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304873)

Please explain how gun control would have prevented this.

I would really like to know since he was past a security checkpoint where anything resembling a weapon is disallowed.

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304917)

Did you even read TFA ?

Re:Great... (5, Insightful)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 6 months ago | (#45304891)

Unlikely. They're already calling his weapon an "assault rifle", despite the fact that "a dozen" shots were fired.

An assault rifle fires "a dozen" shots in about one second (automatic) or at most 4 trigger pulls (3 round burst).

Unless the fire selector is set to single-shot. In which case I'd have to wonder why someone would go through the trouble of procuring an illegal firearm for themselves (assault rifles have been illegal since at least 1986) simply to use it in a manner that any legal (and easily obtained) semi-automatic rifle would suffice for.

Maybe he's military, and it's his service weapon. Or maybe the news outlets are in a race to see who can offer the most hysterical coverage.

Re:Great... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304903)

Not until you realize that guns cannot be uninvented, and/or that trying to circumvent the process by which the US Constitution is amended will come back to bite you in the ass regarding the amendments that you actually care about, will we be able to have a rational discussion about gun control.

Until then, it's not a discussion, it's just you telling me "you don't need a gun because I said so", and me responding back with "fuck off".

Re:Great... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304927)

or we could have a rational discussion about gun control...Nah

Don't waste your breath. Not even the death of tens of children has had any effect whatsoever in "kicking the second amendment right where it belongs". That is into the wastebasket of History.
Americans love guns. Good for them. Have them deal with the aftermath of these anounced tragedies.

Re:Great... (4, Insightful)

rikkards (98006) | about 6 months ago | (#45304551)

I have been saying for the longest time, terrorists don't need to get on the plane. Now they just need to blow them selves up getting into the security line. What then is TSA going to do? It's a cat and mouse game and unfortunately the TSA isn't going to win

Re:Great... (3)

zlives (2009072) | about 6 months ago | (#45304763)

naked airlines... finally we can get the bible trumpeters on board in the name of war on terror

Re:Great... (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 6 months ago | (#45304887)

I have been saying for the longest time, terrorists don't need to get on the plane. Now they just need to blow them selves up getting into the security line. What then is TSA going to do? It's a cat and mouse game and unfortunately the TSA isn't going to win

I've been saying the same. I'm happy the number of casualties was as low as it was. But I find it surprising that someone with (what I assume is) a semi-automatic rifle only killed 1 person and injured 6 on a Friday at LAX. I suppose it could have been a bolt action SKS or something.

Some overseas airports do this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304805)

I know that Istanbul (IST) has almost curbside chechpoints.
Having to pull my netbook just inside the door when leaving was not expected. After that, my status gets me into the "special handling" lines so very little extra hassles happen.

Still, security bottlenecks are a terrible waste - security theatre.

Gunman (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304371)

And, since the gunman used a rifle, all rifles will be banned or limited to 3-round magazines, and the homosexual liberals and their whining will once again set the direction of this state.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Gunman (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304541)

I'm a huge closeted faggot.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Gunman (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304591)

Don't get me started... next thing you know some states are going to ban possession of nuclear weapons. They don't understand that if nuclear weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons.

Re:Gunman (2)

camperdave (969942) | about 6 months ago | (#45304925)

Don't get me started... next thing you know some states are going to ban possession of nuclear weapons. They don't understand that if nuclear weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons.

Yes, and do we really want our outlaws more heavily armed than our inlaws?

Re:Gunman (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304629)

wrong. the response to this is obviously, MORE GUNS. if everyone had a gun, we could have stopped this sooner!

News For Nerds. Stuff That Matters. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304375)

Totally.

Those poor people (-1, Troll)

sI4shd0rk (3402769) | about 6 months ago | (#45304383)

I feel for the six people who were injured.

Re:Those poor people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304519)

Collateral damage is always sad.

Re:Those poor people (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304527)

Looks like some sociopath finally noticed that a slow security checkpoint just means there's an easy crowd in an unsecured area.

What little empathy I can muster for anyone in LA (I have my reasons) goes to the 6(+- reporter error) injured and the family of the TSA grunt. He probably wasn't even one of the thugs, and his death will be used to increase the brutality of those who have abandoned all respect for the populace who just wants to ride uncomfortable chairs to a far-away destination.

Re:Those poor people (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 6 months ago | (#45304603)

> Looks like some sociopath finally noticed that a slow security checkpoint just means there's an easy
>crowd in an unsecured area.

Maybe they should put a security checkppoint in front of the line to protect the people in the line?

> What little empathy I can muster for anyone in LA

I just take comfort in knowing how nice Arizona bay is going to be.

Re:Those poor people (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304561)

I feel for the six people who were injured.

I don't.
You want guns, deal the effects of having milions of freely available guns/shotguns/rifles/assault rifles to the citizenry.

Re:Those poor people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304753)

People want guns, not innocent people getting slaughtered.

Re:Those poor people (0)

evilviper (135110) | about 6 months ago | (#45304771)

You want guns, deal the effects of having milions of freely available guns/shotguns/rifles/assault rifles to the citizenry.

A man could easily injure more than 6 people with a simple chef's knife, baseball bat, large flashlight, sharpened pencils, etc.

Re:Those poor people (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45305037)

If you want to argue against gun control, be my guest. But please, stop using this fucking awful argument. I could kill dozens of people in a few seconds with an assault rifle.

If you know of a knife/bat/flashlight I can accomplish this with, I would love to own it.

Re:Those poor people (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304797)

You're a dick. That's all.

Re:Those poor people (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304641)

I'm glad it's only six. It's really hard to believe there weren't more. A guy with an assault weapon aimin' to misbehave at a busy airport terminal? You'd think there would be dozens dead and many more injured.

Re:Those poor people (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304977)

Indeed. My bet is that it was not an assault rifle at all. Just a scary looking firearm. Of course all scary looking firearms are branded by news outlets as being assault rifles these days.

Re:Those poor people (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304993)

It leads me to believe the guy didn't go in with the intention of killing as many innocent people as possible. There was a clear motive and plan IMO. He could have easily dropped dozens of people at a checkpoint if he wanted.

Re:Those poor people (3, Interesting)

HatofPig (904660) | about 6 months ago | (#45304791)

Really? +4? That's despicable, security guards are fucking people too. Or is this some kind of sick justice for you and those who up-moderated you? How can you justify this an consider yourself 'people'? If a gunman mowed down a courtroom during a tech-giant patent trial, would you eschew any sympathy for the lawyers who died too? Not liking the TSA is one thing, but implying a random person deserved to be fatally shot by a crazed gunman at an airport is sociopathic.

That (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304399)

is one pissed-off TSA worker. No more f'in' around with those folks!

Re:That (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 6 months ago | (#45304459)

Despite earlier reports, he was NOT a TSA employee, but just a ticketed passenger.

Flying out of LAX always makes me want to shoot someone, too. (Too soon?)

Re:That (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304539)

Too late, man.

Re:That (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304575)

>Flying out of LAX always makes me want to shoot someone, too. (Too soon?)

Welcome to the NSA watchlist

Re:That (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304911)

Welcome to the NSA watchlist

Unsubscribe! unsubscribe!!
Dammit.

Re:That (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 6 months ago | (#45304945)

Flying out of LAX always makes me want to shoot someone, too. (Too soon?)

Interesting. Usually the drive to the airport to drop off my rental car makes me feel that way.

Motive was to shoot people, I'd guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304409)

Whatever his deeper motive is, it's all too likely to be whitewashed.

Re:Motive was to shoot people, I'd guess (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 6 months ago | (#45304475)

Whatever his deeper motive is, it's all too likely to be whitewashed.

Or simply fall into the (really rather common) category of 'Yes, it's a motive; but nothing you say can really convey why it would be so motivating."

Not all affect states can be conveyed verbally, especially to people who haven't experienced them. All you can do is use hollow allusions to them.

Do we all know what words like 'hate', 'jealousy', 'frustration' mean? Sure. Do we know what they mean in the sense used by somebody who would offer one or more of them as an explanation for why he would face nearly certain death or capture in order to shoot up a terminal in LAX? Probably not. Not even clear that we could.

What kind of gun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304495)

A gunman armed with a high-powered rifle
What qualifies as high power now a days?

Re:What kind of gun? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304767)

According to the media, anything with a center-fire cartridge. For those who don't know, that's pretty much anything bigger than a BB gun.

deplorable (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 6 months ago | (#45304499)

A leader of the union representing TSA officers deplored the incident.

i agree it is deplorable... and so is the TSA.

Re:deplorable (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 6 months ago | (#45304703)

"i agree it is deplorable... and so is the TSA."

Isn't it just a bit curious that this didn't happen a long time ago?

It's amazing sometimes what a lot of Americans will tolerate for the sake of letting the government "keep them safe"... especially given the government's terrible record of doing it.

Re:deplorable (2)

intermodal (534361) | about 6 months ago | (#45304879)

It wouldn't be half as offensive if what the government did were in some way related to keeping us safe. The TSA is the least convincing theatre troupe I have ever encountered.

How is this news for nerds? (0)

Kurast (1662819) | about 6 months ago | (#45304521)

How is this news for nerds?

Re:How is this news for nerds? (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 6 months ago | (#45304589)

It isn't, but it's fantastic for increasing traffic while geeks put down their hardware and software and tech industry discussions and turn into mouth-breathing Disqus commentors at the bottom of CBS articles that Matt Drudge has linked to.

Re:How is this news for nerds? (3, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 6 months ago | (#45304669)

Maybe it's because some nerds travel by airplane.

Maybe it's because Slashdotters have been pointing out that the line at the screening checkpoint is, itself, a target, and they have unfortunately been proven correct.

I seem to recall there are a number of gun-rights advocates in the Slashdot community, who may be concerned about a legislative (over?)reaction to this atrocious act.

Then there are people like me who check Slashdot a lot more often than they check mainstream news sites, and learned about the shooting just now.

I don't mean to be too hard on you, because your question is legitimate. My best answer is, "news for nerds" is in the eye of the beholder and sometimes the editors will post a story that doesn't interest you, but does interest someone else.

Re:How is this news for nerds? (1)

crakbone (860662) | about 6 months ago | (#45304943)

News for nerds, stuff that matters. Stuff that matters is the most relevant at the moment. Otherwise you would not have posted and just ignored the article.

Article summary sucks. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304523)

Article summary sucks. It wasn't an assault rifle, it was just a rifle. Likely a self-loading rifle, from pictures looks to be a varmint-type AR-15.

Re:Article summary sucks. (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 6 months ago | (#45304747)

What does AR stand for if it isn't Assault Rifle?

It could stand for Abe Romney for all I know, but I assumed all along that it stood for Assault Rifle.

Re:Article summary sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304847)

What does AR stand for if it isn't Assault Rifle?

It could stand for Abe Romney for all I know, but I assumed all along that it stood for Assault Rifle.

why educate yourself when you can just assume and be wrong!

a 3-second google clears it up:

AR does NOT stand for Assault Rifle, as is commonly believed. AR stands for the original company that manufactured it, ArmaLite.

Re:Article summary sucks. (4, Informative)

crakbone (860662) | about 6 months ago | (#45304981)

I believe it stands for Armalite. The company that makes the rifle. The 15 is the model. It is not an assault rifle despite it's looks.

Re:Article summary sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304819)

But it looks scary and does scary things....therefore we have to call it a scary name.

Harder than killing him... (5, Insightful)

N_Piper (940061) | about 6 months ago | (#45304529)

My congratulations on the Police who did the difficult task of taking this man alive.

Re:Harder than killing him... (3, Informative)

SailorSpork (1080153) | about 6 months ago | (#45304759)

According to TFA, he was shot in the chest multiple times before being taken into custody. I don't think bringing him in alive was their top priority, but I agree that it is unusual and will be interesting to hear what he claims his motives were rather than piecing it together by scraping it off of his Facebook page and his Guns 'R Us receipts.

Re:Harder than killing him... (1)

Megane (129182) | about 6 months ago | (#45304973)

Isn't this the same LAPD that opened fire on the wrong color and type of pick-up truck a few months ago, putting over fifty holes in it, yet still only managed to have one or two bullets even injure the two people inside?

Just one to many (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304559)

Just one to many gropes to this persons nether regions.

Screening areas as terrorist targets (5, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | about 6 months ago | (#45304595)

How many years have people been complaining that the only the thing the long lines at the screening areas do is make for a target rich environment? Attacking waiting points for security lines is a time honored practice in some parts of the world, the only surprising thing is that it took this long for it to occur here.

Security theater isn't just an inconvenience, it's a security risk in and of itself. I used to travel for a living and I have easily seen times in major airports where there were thousands of people queued up to go through the security checkpoints. It's a target rich environment where you can't miss for trying in some airports.

It's time to end security theater and demand real security.

Re:Screening areas as terrorist targets (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 6 months ago | (#45304643)

After the big mall shooting in Africa, I'm surprised this hasn't happened on a bigger scale already.

Re:Screening areas as terrorist targets (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304855)

Yeah. Maybe warrantless wire-tapping by the NSA is a good idea. They can't afford it over there, but we're better off in America because of it.

Re:Screening areas as terrorist targets (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 6 months ago | (#45304699)

How many years have people been complaining that the only the thing the long lines at the screening areas do is make for a target rich environment?

There are innumerable other "target-rich environments" elsewhere, that don't have police and armed guards swarming all over the place.

Shopping malls, movie theatres, ANY stores on Black Friday, or a few days before Christmas, restaurants during diner, the DMV, etc.

Re:Screening areas as terrorist targets (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#45304737)

It's time to end security theater and demand real security.

Your solution is???? non-existent. It is very easy to point out problems but much harder to come up with a solution. Having checkpoints is much less dangerous than not having them. They could be faster but doing away with them is not the answer either.

Re:Screening areas as terrorist targets (2)

Megane (129182) | about 6 months ago | (#45305015)

Apparently in this case it was more of a "bystander-rich environment". All those passengers kept getting in the way of his objective of shooting TSA people.

"He saw me. He looked at me with a quizzical look and said, 'TSA?' And I just shook my head. So he moved on," Saryan said.

Impossible! (4, Insightful)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 6 months ago | (#45304623)

This could not possibly be real --

a man removed an assault rifle from a bag at Los Angeles International Airport and opened fire.

Assault rifles are illegal in California; therefore this could never have happened!

Re:Impossible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304941)

Initial reports are that the perpetrator was an ex TSA official.

Re:Impossible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304957)

The issue is we need to ban assault PEOPLE. That's where the legislature screwed up.

Why not kill the guy? (0)

linuxguy (98493) | about 6 months ago | (#45304645)

So he is shooting at people and has already killed one TSA officer. Why even try to take him alive? If there is ever a justification for shoot first and ask questions later, this is it. Now we'll have to pay for his room and board and legal fees for years to come.

Re:Why not kill the guy? (4, Informative)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#45304773)

He was shot and is in critical condition. Happy?

Re:Why not kill the guy? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 6 months ago | (#45304971)

He was shot multiple times in the chest yet somehow survived. I don believe the officer was thinking about custody at the time, only about stopping him.

The NRA must be pleased (1, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 6 months ago | (#45304671)

That guy exercised the *shit* out of his second amendment rights. It's too bad Thomas Jefferson isn't around to high five him.

Conspiracy theory (1, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 6 months ago | (#45304723)

DHS wants more funding, so they told this man "You do this or we kill everyone you know in the slowest, most painful way that no one will ever hear about"

and now the blaming begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304733)

How long before Alex Jones starts claiming this was a false flag operation?

Assuming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304787)

... he didn't use a phaser, go the fuck away.

Nothing new here, move along, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45304857)

Murricans shooting eachother again

>News for Nerds
ha

Firearm Legal Status (4, Informative)

awkScooby (741257) | about 6 months ago | (#45304883)

An assault rifle, by definition is a machine gun. The gun used at LAX wasn't (as best we can tell from the available information). So the first sentence in the summary is inaccurate.

There's speculation, based on a photo on Twitter that the rifle is a Ruger Mini-14, in which case it may not have qualified as an "assault weapon" as defined by Federal Law. Under Feinstein's last [failed] assault weapon ban, the Ruger Mini-14 with a collapsible stock was banned, but the other Mini-14's were ok. It would depend on whether or not the stock folds/collapses.

Under California law, the pistol grip, and ability to accept a detachable magazine are sufficient to classify it as an "assault weapon."

Looks like high capacity magazines were used, although they may have had inserts to render them legal (i.e. limit them to 10 rounds). If they are large capacity and he owned them before 2000, they're legal. Otherwise they would only be legal if they were limited to 10 rounds (or fewer).

We can say with high confidence that a semi-automatic rifle was used. Under the previous Federal assault weapon ban, and the more recent failed Federal effort, this rifle may or may not have been considered an "assault weapon." Under California law this rifle is an assault weapon. The magazines may or may not have been legal.

Delusional and Angry (1)

mendax (114116) | about 6 months ago | (#45304909)

There are many reasons why this fellow started to shoot people. Given how terrible service is on airlines these days in "cattle class", long lines, TSA agents who want to "touch my junk" (the pedophile who touched mine when I was a kid was enough), late flights, no-fly lists, and more horrors, it's no wonder that this guy goes nuts. He's probably a frequent flier on United.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...