AA flight attendant arrested at ORD checkpoint on Friday with gun

[WorldTraveler]

There is a big difference between carrying a gun and using to destroy dozens of lives, esp. of children who had no defense or warning.

There were major indications that red flags existed that were not dealt with = once again.

The US has to deal with the issue of guns being in the hands of people who shouldn't have them - and not everyone can handle the responsibility of having a gun in their possession.

 

[Bob Owens]

There is a big difference between carrying a gun and using to destroy dozens of lives, esp. of children who had no defense or warning.

There were major indications that red flags existed that were not dealt with = once again.

The US has to deal with the issue of guns being in the hands of people who shouldn't have them - and not everyone can handle the responsibility of having a gun in their possession.

Agreed, I'm not in favor of seeing guns taken away from everybody but I see nothing wrong with registration and testing , like we have with automobiles. Sure there are still lots of deadly car accidents, but imagine how much worse it would be if there wasnt even a requirement to pass a driving test? The NRA crowd seems to be against any form of control, the story being that if the government gets the right to demand that we register them and prove we can handle them safely, and arent nuts, that the next step is they will take them away from everyone. Well they havent taken away all our cars yet have they?

 

[WorldTraveler]

and yet more people, even small children, are killed in auto accidents than in horrific events like today.....

but we can't continue to ignore the problem and succomb to those who refuse to recognize that dangerous people can turn the most benign objects into objects of destruction. 9/11 showed us that.

But there are simply not enough controls to keep weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

 

[ContUNITEus]

and yet more people, even small children, are killed in auto accidents than in horrific events like today.....

but we can't continue to ignore the problem and succomb to those who refuse to recognize that dangerous people can turn the most benign objects into objects of destruction. 9/11 showed us that.

But there are simply not enough controls to keep weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

How many times do you see someone taking a car and barrel it down a crowd with the purpose of killing everyone? I bet you - not many... You don't see it in the news, that someone snapped, decided to take a vehicle, and go on a rampage to kill people. You don't see it in the news that someone took a knife, and decided to kill 30 people. Yet you see it, time and time again, how people with guns go on shooting sprees like the one today.

I find it disturbing that all these gun advocates always resort to the excuse that the gun is just an object and that any other object could've been taken to commit the same act - and that it is about finding the sick people out there. The point is that it was not any other object, it was a gun - only because of the impact that it leaves behind.

Am I missing something here? It is the fascination with the gun in the first place and the fact that a person with a gun, that has had enough of society or whatever problems he/she has been having, has the ability to leave behind that gigantic psychological impact associated with going on a shooting rampage. Again, had there been no gun, then a fantasy to wipe everyone and their mother would have not become reality.

I also would like if, for everyone of those mass shootings that we have had in the USA, has there ever been a (hero) in the crowd carrying a gun to fight back and defend themselves and the other potential victims? I also believe the answer to be 0.

 

[IORFA]

I thought you felt unsafe here? Are you packing? Plenty of flights daily to the UK.

 

[silverbird007]

I know one way to deal with this problem. Go back to when the constitutional amendment was passed and legalize guns from that period. (around 1800) which means a single shot rifle (or musket) whatever it was at the time. This would make it a 2 or 3 minute ordeal to fire 1 bullet. This would ensure that if you were intent on a killing spree like this wacko was, then you could only kill one person. If you have everyone with a single shot firearm then the good guys would be able to take this wacko out before he could kill the second person. This is all assuming we could get rid of all the modern weapons (rifles, pistols assault rifles) which would take alot of time of course. But if this were to happen we would be able to get rid of this type of mass killings and allow the amendment to stand. Why does anyone need an AK 47 type weapon (outside of the military)? I have relatives that voted for Bush 2 over his lifting of the assault weapon ban. CRAZY!

 

[silverbird007]

I guess when the US Congress passed the amendment on the right to bear arms they didnt realize that in a few decades we would have AK 47s and other mass killing weapons. At the time we only had the muzzle load type rifles etc. I doubt they would have approved of AK 47s.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

and yet more people, even small children, are killed in auto accidents than in horrific events like today.....

Red herring alert.

Children are exposed to auto traffic quite a bit more than they are to deranged people with guns (and intent on mass murder).

 

[ContUNITEus]

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c4#/video/world/2012/12/15/pmt-panel-gun-control-debate.cnn

 

[kirkpatrick]

I thought you felt unsafe here? Are you packing? Plenty of flights daily to the UK.

Eight people were killed by handguns in the UK last year. In the US? Over 10,700.
MK

 

[eolesen]

I guess when the US Congress passed the amendment on the right to bear arms they didnt realize that in a few decades we would have AK 47s and other mass killing weapons. At the time we only had the muzzle load type rifles etc. I doubt they would have approved of AK 47s.

I also doubt that the framers would have agreed to something restricting the people from being able to rise up against a corrupt government, which is the entire point of the Second Amendment.

The British knew that pitchforks and torches were no match for muskets. But a well armed populace?

If you don't have an adequate level of weaponry by defend yourself against the government, there's no point in having the amendment at all.

 

[FWAAA]

How many times do you see someone taking a car and barrel it down a crowd with the purpose of killing everyone? I bet you - not many... You don't see it in the news, that someone snapped, decided to take a vehicle, and go on a rampage to kill people.

I'll grant you that - mass murder by vehicle is pretty rare. Generally, it's elderly people and unintentional (not murder). About a decade ago, a 90 year old mowed down about 30 people, killing 10 of them, with his car at the Santa Monica Farmer's market. A few weeks ago, an elderly man backed over a crowd of children in South LA, killing some of them, as they waited for ice cream.

You don't see it in the news that someone took a knife, and decided to kill 30 people. Yet you see it, time and time again, how people with guns go on shooting sprees like the one today.

Apparently you missed the news from China on Friday morning. An unemployed loser slashed 22 children and one adult outside an elementary school in China just as the children were arriving for Friday morning classes:

BEIJING -- A man with a knife slashed 22 children and one adult outside an elementary school in Henan province Friday morning, China's worst such incident in more than a year.
The attack was reminiscent of a spate of knife attacks on schoolchildren that took place across China in 2010. In most cases, the attackers were unemployed middle-aged men, leading to speculation that the assaults stemmed from economic and social discontent.

Friday's attack occurred at about 7:40 a.m. as children were arriving outside the gate of Chenpeng Village’s Wanquan Elementary School. The suspect, Min Yingjun, 36, allegedly slashed an elderly woman as well as the children. Local propaganda officials said later that Min had a psychological illness.

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-man-slashes-22-children-near-china-school-20121214,0,6383015.story

Nobody died, but it wasn't for lack of effort. Of course, on Saturday, anti-gun crowd is trumpeting the absence of death in the Chinese school incident as proof that we'd be much better off with no guns because the maimed children in China didn't die:

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-in-china-a-school-attackers-victims-are-injured-not-dead-20121215,0,3337695.story

I find it disturbing that all these gun advocates always resort to the excuse that the gun is just an object and that any other object could've been taken to commit the same act - and that it is about finding the sick people out there. The point is that it was not any other object, it was a gun - only because of the impact that it leaves behind.

Am I missing something here? It is the fascination with the gun in the first place and the fact that a person with a gun, that has had enough of society or whatever problems he/she has been having, has the ability to leave behind that gigantic psychological impact associated with going on a shooting rampage. Again, had there been no gun, then a fantasy to wipe everyone and their mother would have not become reality.

In the USA, we've gone soft on the mentally deranged. In most mass-murder cases, post-mortem investigation generally reveals plenty of clues that the person was mentally defective and should have been locked up to protect society. The lunatic who shot up the theatre (Dark Knight premiere) was one rare exception that trend. In most others, like the Tuscon incident (nearly killed Congresswoman Giffords), the shooter's mental problems were no secret. Society just didn't act on the available info and protect itself.

But instead, many focus on the weapon/object instead of the lunatic. Go ahead and make it even more difficult to obtain or keep a gun. The next lunatic who wants to slaughter children will simply fill a few glass jars with gasoline and once he's forced his way into the school and backed the children into a corner, he'll incinerate them with his molotov cocktails. Then you can bemoan the availablility of gasoline and glass jars.

Four airplanes were used to kill nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. Why no calls to ban the airplane? 700 million people fly without incident in the USA every year on millions of flights, that's why. Yesterday, tragically, two or three guns out of hundreds of millions in the USA were used to slaughter some innocent children. And predictably, rather than focus on detecting and locking up the mental defectives, we once again hear about those terrible, scary guns. I guess once the guns are gone, we can dance in the streets every time a lunatic manages to kill or maim with something that's not a gun - and we can pat ourselves on the back for getting rid of the guns. No thanks. I'd rather we concentrate our efforts on detecting and incarcerating the mass-murderers before they slash 22 children with a knife or detonate a bomb.

One question: Friday's tragedy has nothing to do with a flight attendant who inadvertently tried to carry a gun thru an airport checkpoint, so why is the Newtown tragedy being discussed here? Why not in the water cooler?

 

[FA Mikey]

If you don't have an adequate level of weaponry by defend yourself against the government, there's no point in having the amendment at all.

When was the last rise up against the government?

 

[DNTULSA]

http://www.cnn.com/v...trol-debate.cnn

Troll much?

 

[IORFA]

Eight people were killed by handguns in the UK last year. In the US? Over 10,700.
MK

I wasn't disputing the fact people die from guns in the US. Just that this pansy should go home if he/she feels unsafe here. Use his/her British politics back where it matters, in the UK.