Ft Lauderdale airport shooting

[Free Northman Reborn]

Heavy.com reports the shooter had psychiatric problems and had complained about hearing voices.

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'm going to go with Airport Food Pricing. It's fucking criminal.

not as criminal as the drink pricing.

I can get through an airport without food.

[mormont]

People have died here: can we knock off the poor attempts at humour?

[Andorion]

Apparently the suspect was having mental problems and was being prosecuted for domestic violence.

How did he have a gun? It was legal for someone charged with assault and having mental problems to have a gun?

 

[all swedes are racist]

11 minutes ago, Andorion said:

Apparently the suspect was having mental problems and was being prosecuted for domestic violence.

How did he have a gun? It was legal for someone charged with assault and having mental problems to have a gun?

 

Andorion, meet the US. US, this is Andorion.

[Free Northman Reborn]

12 minutes ago, Andorion said:

Apparently the suspect was having mental problems and was being prosecuted for domestic violence.

How did he have a gun? It was legal for someone charged with assault and having mental problems to have a gun?

 

Good question.

[Andorion]

I don't get it - I can even let go of the assault thing - innocent until proven guilty - etc. but this guy was talking about government controlling his mind - he was clearly losing it. Given that he was a combat veteran I would not rule out PTSD. So how was it a good idea for him to have a gun?

Going by this CNN report he had actually visited the FBI and been examined by authorities. How did he have a gun after that? Is there not a provision for confiscating a gun from a mentally unstable person?

 

[SerHaHa]

Quote

How did he have a gun after that?

There could be dozens of ways.  Even if there is a mental health order to remove his access to firearms he may own, it's easy to miss some, without a firearms registry in the USA, or even Canada now, it's impossible for the authorities to track what is where.  Even IF all his firearms were taken away, every 2nd house in both Canada and the USA statistically has a firearm - or more - inside of it.  Getting access to firearms, even if you're banned from having them, are an x-felon, or whatever, is very, very easy in North American. 

I don't understand why this question keeps getting asked - it's like asking "why did this drunk who just killed 5 people with his car, still have the ability to drive?"  Maybe he didn't have a license, and was banned from driving, but just because something is illegal or unlawful, does not make it physically impossible to do in the real world. 

Speaking of PTSD, just since this thread started 20 veterans have killed themselves somewhere in the USA, 1/2 of them with a firearm.  3500 people were shot in 2016 in a city with some of the most stringent gun control laws on the continent.  It's a complex issue, with no easy, or real solution.  No law passed, outside of an outright ban on civilian ownership of firearms, is EVER going to make a difference in a society with so many problems. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

There could be dozens of ways.  Even if there is a mental health order to remove his access to firearms he may own, it's easy to miss some, without a firearms registry in the USA, or even Canada now, it's impossible for the authorities to track what is where.  Even IF all his firearms were taken away, every 2nd house in both Canada and the USA statistically has a firearm - or more - inside of it.  Getting access to firearms, even if you're banned from having them, are an x-felon, or whatever, is very, very easy in North American. 

I don't understand why this question keeps getting asked - it's like asking "why did this drunk who just killed 5 people with his car, still have the ability to drive?"  Maybe he didn't have a license, and was banned from driving, but just because something is illegal or unlawful, does not make it physically impossible to do in the real world. 

Speaking of PTSD, just since this thread started 20 veterans have killed themselves somewhere in the USA, 1/2 of them with a firearm.  3500 people were shot in 2016 in a city with some of the most stringent gun control laws on the continent.  It's a complex issue, with no easy, or real solution.  No law passed, outside of an outright ban on civilian ownership of firearms, is EVER going to make a difference in a society with so many problems. 

All good and well. But this guy had a legal permit. That's the issue that needs analysis. He apparently is mentally ill. So he should not have such a permit.

[Andorion]

2 hours ago, SerHaHa said:

There could be dozens of ways.  Even if there is a mental health order to remove his access to firearms he may own, it's easy to miss some, without a firearms registry in the USA, or even Canada now, it's impossible for the authorities to track what is where.  Even IF all his firearms were taken away, every 2nd house in both Canada and the USA statistically has a firearm - or more - inside of it.  Getting access to firearms, even if you're banned from having them, are an x-felon, or whatever, is very, very easy in North American. 

I don't understand why this question keeps getting asked - it's like asking "why did this drunk who just killed 5 people with his car, still have the ability to drive?"  Maybe he didn't have a license, and was banned from driving, but just because something is illegal or unlawful, does not make it physically impossible to do in the real world. 

Speaking of PTSD, just since this thread started 20 veterans have killed themselves somewhere in the USA, 1/2 of them with a firearm.  3500 people were shot in 2016 in a city with some of the most stringent gun control laws on the continent.  It's a complex issue, with no easy, or real solution.  No law passed, outside of an outright ban on civilian ownership of firearms, is EVER going to make a difference in a society with so many problems. 

So don't you see the problem here? It is indisputable that for the sake of public safety this man should not have had a gun. Yet you are saying there is no way to stop him from having a gun

Why isn't there a firearms registry? A good way to prevent this would have been to restrict his access to firearms, and make it compulsory that any guns taken through checked in luggage must be checked against the ownder's permit. His permit would have disallowed him a gun - any gun he managed to acquire. 

Also make theft/loss of a gun a mandatory reporting event. 

[kairparavel]

3 minutes ago, Andorion said:

So don't you see the problem here? It is indisputable that for the sake of public safety this man should not have had a gun. Yet you are saying there is no way to stop him from having a gun

Why isn't there a firearms registry? A good way to prevent this would have been to restrict his access to firearms, and make it compulsory that any guns taken through checked in luggage must be checked against the ownder's permit. His permit would have disallowed him a gun - any gun he managed to acquire. 

Also make theft/loss of a gun a mandatory reporting event. 

The 2nd Amendment makes no distinction in mental fitness when declaring ownership is a right. And anything that restricts gun ownership makes a powerful portion of the US population upset. Also see: 'right to bear arms' when asking about gun ownership and registeries.

Also, you're suggesting a lot of burden on airlines. They are in the business of transportation not regulation.

Finally, guns and the US is a frequent topic of discussion on this board. It goes nowhere, and generally should be discussed separate from a specific incident.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

If we have to register to vote (the core and fundamental right of American Citizenship) why shouldn't we have to register to keep and bear a firearm?  Why is registration, in light of this event, an unreasonable regulation on the right to keep and bear arms?

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, kairparavel said:

The 2nd Amendment makes no distinction in mental fitness when declaring ownership is a right. And anything that restricts gun ownership makes a powerful portion of the US population upset. Also see: 'right to bear arms' when asking about gun ownership and registeries.

Actually the research I've done on the subject shows that restrictions on gun ownership for the mentally ill is the one thing that is quite uncontroversial, I believe the NRA has consistently backed such restrictions.

[kairparavel]

20 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Actually the research I've done on the subject shows that restrictions on gun ownership for the mentally ill is the one thing that is quite uncontroversial, I believe the NRA has consistently backed such restrictions.

Well, they've paid lip service to that sure. But as you can see, nothing is actually being done by them.

[Andorion]

1 hour ago, kairparavel said:

The 2nd Amendment makes no distinction in mental fitness when declaring ownership is a right.1 And anything that restricts gun ownership makes a powerful portion of the US population upset. Also see: 'right to bear arms' when asking about gun ownership and registeries.2.

Also, you're suggesting a lot of burden on airlines. They are in the business of transportation not regulation.3

Finally, guns and the US is a frequent topic of discussion on this board. It goes nowhere, and generally should be discussed separate from a specific incident.

1. If it does not it is wrong, broken and a country bleeds everyday because of it. 

2. What has right to bear arms got to do with registries. A person can own a gun, but needs to get it registered. I believe the car registry and insurance process is more rigourous. Why can't that apply to guns?

3. The TSA already screens people. The inspection on arms in checked luggage could be given to them. It would require more money, but surely that would be worth it if it prevented stuff like this?

Without a registry, without a check on whether that gun you are transporting is actually yours or not how do you keep tabs on illegal weapons as well?

[kairparavel]

4 minutes ago, Andorion said:

1. If it does not it is wrong, broken and a country bleeds everyday because of it. 

2. What has right to bear arms got to do with registries. A person can own a gun, but needs to get it registered. I believe the car registry and insurance process is more rigourous. Why can't that apply to guns?

3. The TSA already screens people. The inspection on arms in checked luggage could be given to them. It would require more money, but surely that would be worth it if it prevented stuff like this?

Without a registry, without a check on whether that gun you are transporting is actually yours or not how do you keep tabs on illegal weapons as well?

It would behoove you to search for older threads on this topic and to read up some more about gun ownership in the US. The second amendment is very important to a lot of people. If you have a God-given right to bear arms, you don't need to register it. Anyways, I encourage you to research some more, as it's been talked about on the board and elsewhere. The US is very unique on this topic.

[Andorion]

8 minutes ago, kairparavel said:

It would behoove you to search for older threads on this topic and to read up some more about gun ownership in the US. The second amendment is very important to a lot of people. If you have a God-given right to bear arms, you don't need to register it. Anyways, I encourage you to research some more, as it's been talked about on the board and elsewhere. The US is very unique on this topic.

You didn't really answer any of the points though - you keep on telling me to look, and I will, but why not answer with something more substantial than "People feel its important"?

The Second Amendment reads: "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." This statement is meaningless minus historical context. The state militias were instrumental and important in the American war of independence. Moreover they were a symbol of the federal autonomy the states enjoyed. 

But where is the need for a militia today? Each state already has an armed contingent - the National Guard. They contribute to the national defence. Where is the need for a militia beyond this? 

The US armed forces are the most technologically advanced, well equipped and funded on the planet. Civilians owning guns will not make any substantial contribution to the national defence. And as for domestic application - would civilians with guns have improved the situation at the airport? All the reports spoke of panicked stampedes. Imagine multiple armed amateurs dischargins guns in that situation! It would in fact be pretty likely that this would create confusion over the total number of shooters, and the shooters identity and make the job of the police far more difficult. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

10 minutes ago, Andorion said:

You didn't really answer any of the points though - you keep on telling me to look, and I will, but why not answer with something more substantial than "People feel its important"?

The Second Amendment reads: "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." This statement is meaningless minus historical context. The state militias were instrumental and important in the American war of independence. Moreover they were a symbol of the federal autonomy the states enjoyed. 

But where is the need for a militia today? Each state already has an armed contingent - the National Guard. They contribute to the national defence. Where is the need for a militia beyond this? 

The US armed forces are the most technologically advanced, well equipped and funded on the planet. Civilians owning guns will not make any substantial contribution to the national defence. And as for domestic application - would civilians with guns have improved the situation at the airport? All the reports spoke of panicked stampedes. Imagine multiple armed amateurs dischargins guns in that situation! It would in fact be pretty likely that this would create confusion over the total number of shooters, and the shooters identity and make the job of the police far more difficult. 

Friend, you are directing your ire at the wrong person. Kairparavel is not some gun rights crusader. Cut her some slack. As she suggested, have a look at some of the older threads here. Your arguments, while clearly passionate, are not new, and not universally supported either.

[mormont]

[mod] As suggested, let's put the 399th iteration of the gun control debate on hold or take it to another thread, OK? [/mod]

[Squab]

Esteban Santiago signed up for Myspace under the name Aashiq Hammad and was recording music there such as a song called "La ilaha illAllah" roughly translated to "There is no God but Allah". This was 3 years before he was deployed. He recently complained to the FBI about being forced to fight for Islamic state. FBI has not ruled out terrorism as a motive.