Shots fired at LAX

[LTC8K6]

I'm not sure I believe those "statistics" and how often are guns used for intimidation? I'd bet there are zero studies on that. Christ, two law abiding CCW holders shot and killed each other in Michigan a few months ago over a road rage incident. Tell me intimidation had nothing to do with that...

If they pulled their guns to intimidate each other, then they broke the law...

It's illegal to wave your gun around to intimidate, so anyone doing so is not a law abiding CCW holder.

Of course, you picked such a common occurrence to use as an example... :biggrin:

 

[irishScott]

I'm not sure I believe those "statistics" and how often are guns used for intimidation? I'd bet there are zero studies on that. Christ, two law abiding CCW holders shot and killed each other in Michigan a few months ago over a road rage incident. Tell me intimidation had nothing to do with that...

Well if you're going to judge all CCW holders by those two then why not judge all drivers by the standards of DUI conviction? You can't cherry pick and paint with a broad stroke and hope to be taken seriously, a lesson the gun control lobby is learning the hard way.

As for statistics, here are the numbers from the Violence Policy Center, who are well on the pro-gun-control side of the equation, quoting the Bureau of Justice Statistics’
National Crime Victimization Survey.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/?_r=0

“for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740 — not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million.

So even if 2/3 of the people on that survey are lying, there are still more than twice as many self defensive gun uses as gun murders.

 

[LTC8K6]

Eh... I'm not actually a fan of strict gun control, but your post doesn't really make much logical sense. First, you don't know that magazine capacity limits didn't prevent more casualties from taking place. Second, you don't know that he didn't buy the weapons outside of the state of California (unless I'm behind in the news). Acquiring the weapons legally outside of the state of California and then crossing the state lines and using them doesn't mean that the state of California failed.

There's no evidence that any mag cap limit would have affected any crime spree that I'm aware of.

It's not that easy to buy a weapon and import it as you suggest.

You have to do the background check if you buy from any licensed dealer anywhere in the US. So the dealer will know your state of residence, and won't sell you a gun that's illegal in your home state.

If you use a fake ID, well then you are committing a crime.

 

[JulesMaximus]

There's no evidence that any mag cap limit would have affected any crime spree that I'm aware of.

It's not that easy to buy a weapon and import it as you suggest.

You have to do the background check if you buy from any licensed dealer anywhere in the US. So the dealer will know your state of residence, and won't sell you a gun that's illegal in your home state.

If you use a fake ID, well then you are committing a crime.

Really? Have you ever driven across a state line? It is about as secure as crossing a bridge. There is a sign that says you crossed into another state. That's pretty much it.

He was from NJ. It's not really difficult to establish residency in a state though and buy a gun. And it's definitely not difficult to cross state lines. I'm not saying it should be difficult to cross state lines but it might be a bit more difficult to buy a gun in this country. Just sayin. :ninja:

 

[irishScott]

Really? Have you ever driven across a state line? It is about as secure as crossing a bridge. There is a sign that says you crossed into another state. That's pretty much it.

He was from NJ. It's not really difficult to establish residency in a state though and buy a gun. And it's definitely not difficult to cross state lines. I'm not saying it should be difficult to cross state lines but it might be a bit more difficult to buy a gun in this country. Just sayin. :ninja:

Actually New Jersey is one of the few states with even more draconian gun laws than California. Just saying.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Actually New Jersey is one of the few states with even more draconian gun laws than California. Just saying.

Like I said, it's not difficult to establish residency... nor is it difficult to acquire a firearm.

I don't think CA gun laws are all that draconian personally. I'm from NY where it is much more difficult to get a handgun from my understanding. I grew up there but never owned a handgun while I lived there. Never got killed there either... guess I was lucky.

 

[marvdmartian]

Actually, OP, the correct title to this thread should have been, "Shots fired IN LAX".

It's obvious this is another whack job. The conspiracy theorists will say he's a plant, from the anti-gunners. :hmm:

I mean, honestly......you're walking through an airport, asking, "Are you TSA?" Here's a clue.....go to SECURITY!! They like to congregate there!!

Well, there....and at the doughnut shops in the terminal. :sneaky:

 

[jpeyton]

First, you don't know that magazine capacity limits didn't prevent more casualties from taking place.

It sounds like it was a targeted killing. The shooter passed by dozens of random people looking specifically for a TSA agent. He probably could have accomplished the same result with a pocket-sized .380.

Second, you don't know that he didn't buy the weapons outside of the state of California (unless I'm behind in the news). Acquiring the weapons legally outside of the state of California and then crossing the state lines and using them doesn't mean that the state of California failed.

Wait, so you're telling me criminals don't follow gun control laws?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Eh... I'm not actually a fan of strict gun control, but your post doesn't really make much logical sense. First, you don't know that magazine capacity limits didn't prevent more casualties from taking place. Second, you don't know that he didn't buy the weapons outside of the state of California (unless I'm behind in the news). Acquiring the weapons legally outside of the state of California and then crossing the state lines and using them doesn't mean that the state of California failed.

actually a limited study by the DoJ as part of the 1994 AWB analysis found that in mag capacity was rarely a factor.

see section 9.2.1: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

Caution is warranted in generalizing from these results because they are based on a very small number of incidents (6) from one sample in one city. Further, it is not known if the offenders in these cases had LCMs (gun model and magazine information was very limited); they may have emptied small magazines, reloaded, and continued firing. But subject to these caveats, the findings suggest that the ability to deliver more than 10 shots without reloading may be instrumental in a small but non-trivial percentage of gunshot victimizations.

On the other hand, the Jersey City study also implies that eliminating AWs and LCMs might only reduce gunshot victimizations by up to 5%. And even this estimate is probably overly optimistic because the LCM ban cannot be expected to prevent all incidents with more than 10 shots. Consequently, any effects from the ban (should it be extended) are likely to be smaller and perhaps quite difficult to detect with standard statistical methods (see Koper and Roth, 2001a), especially in the near future, if recent patterns of LCM use continue