world

Police seek motive after deadly LA airport shooting

48 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2013 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

48 Comments
Login to comment

Police seek motive

How about "Police seek ban"?

Stop the insanity!

5 ( +7 / -2 )

guns dont kill people..... Americans with guns kill people.... its American 'culture'....

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

How about "Police seek ban"? Stop the insanity!

Yes because we all know this man would not have attacked anyone if he did not have a gun.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

The NRA will say, look, if EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD HAD A GUN....blah, blah, blah!! That would be real cool, right?? Just imagine not only this idiot loser from crappy New Jersey not fitting into the LA life style so he takes it out on the poorest, TSA workers?? I smell MENTAL problems, but anyway, this will NEVER bring back the life of the slain TSA worker, GERARDO HERNANDEZ!! RIP Gerardo and may the USA and LAX learn something about REAL security from ISRAEL! America now way too easy to shoot up, way too many SOFT TARGETS like all of these USA international airports.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Motive? He fought for your right to bear bottled water and breast milk.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Maybe he got his junk fondled one time too many.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

This is going to make security at LAX a nightmare like it was for a few years after 9/11. I will warn my mom to get to the airport much earlier before she comes this year.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

DudeDeuceNov. 03, 2013 - 10:35AM JST

This is going to make security at LAX a nightmare like it was for a few years after 9/11. I will warn my mom to get to the airport much earlier before she comes this year.

LAX is the worst airport among many others. I have been avoiding LAX, CHI, PHI, NYC at all cost. Agreed, 2 hrs minimum check in time may not be enough for international flight.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Ban guns now.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Another one inspired by Grand Theft Auto?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Seek motive? Umm.. the TSA are the biggest bunch of power harassing asses of the century.

I was recently watching a youtube video where some woman was harassed, threatened with arrest, illegally detained for more than 2 hours and eventually forced to miss her flight, which resulted in her not being able to get home in time to feed her child...

Why? Because on her last flight the TSA personnel had tried to make her put her breast milk through the X-ray, but she refused and asked for the non-radioactive process used for medical materials (as was her right in terms of TSA procedure), and she then filed a complaint (again, completely legal and within her rights). So the next time they subjected her to several unnecessary searches, threatened her, harassed her, and denied her the medical screening procedure for her breast milk....

Isn't this PRECISELY why the founding fathers insisted that citizens be allowed to carry firearms? In order to be able to oppose tyranny and illegal behavior by their government? Yet here you see a citizen exercising their constitutional duty by forcibly opposing tyranny and another organ of the state, the police, arrest him.

This should be an interesting trial. The U.S. constitution vs the power-mad and paranoid administration. If anything it shows that the U.S. has more to fear from its citizens than from phantom terrorists in other countries...

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Isn't this PRECISELY why the founding fathers insisted that citizens be allowed to carry firearms? In order to be able to oppose tyranny and illegal behavior by their government? Yet here you see a citizen exercising their constitutional duty by forcibly opposing tyranny and another organ of the state, the police, arrest him.

Let me get this straight, you are basing your support of this man to walk into an airport with a gun and murder people based on one youtube video you saw? What if it was your relative that was killed?

Motive? He fought for your right to bear bottled water and breast milk.

Sorry, I still don't get the morbid attempt at humor.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

FrungyNov. 03, 2013 - 12:44PM JST

Seek motive? Umm.. the TSA are the biggest bunch of power harassing asses of the century.

You probably do not fly from/to US. I do not mind the security check at all. This is a part of life we just have to get used to it as there are too many crazy people.

I was recently watching a youtube video where some woman was harassed, threatened with arrest, illegally detained for more than 2 hours and eventually forced to miss her flight, which resulted in her not being able to get home in time to feed her child...

Probably there is another side of the story from TSA you have not heard yet.

Why? Because on her last flight the TSA personnel had tried to make her put her breast milk through the X-ray, but she refused and asked for the non-radioactive process used for medical materials (as was her right in terms of TSA procedure), and she then filed a complaint (again, completely legal and within her rights). So the next time they subjected her to several unnecessary searches, threatened her, harassed her, and denied her the medical screening procedure for her breast milk....

It could be totally avoided. All she had to do was to get a doctor's paper prior to the flight plan. She was totally just ignorant. She needs to grow up and I have no sympathy.

Isn't this PRECISELY why the founding fathers insisted that citizens be allowed to carry firearms? In order to be able to oppose tyranny and illegal behavior by their government? Yet here you see a citizen exercising their constitutional duty by forcibly opposing tyranny and another organ of the state, the police, arrest him.

We have heard enough. This is a 21st century, dear. Tyranny and illegal behavior of the government? Owww, you mean you are talking about the Tea Party and Ted Cruz that shut down the government? A citizen exercising a constitutional duty? Hmmm, I guess you are suggesting it is okay to shoot them? Do you believe in democracy?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Make murder illegal.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Ya got that right....

2 ( +4 / -2 )

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And people with guns kill more people."

How about that?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

slumdogNov. 03, 2013 - 01:04PM JST Let me get this straight, you are basing your support of this man to walk into an airport with a gun and murder people based on one youtube video you saw? What if it was your relative that was killed?

Nope, what I'm saying is that if this isn't a good use of the 2nd amendment then there are no good uses of the 2nd amendment and it should be scrapped. You can't have it both ways. Without any legitimate uses of the 2nd amendment it merely becomes an excuse for people to wave guns around and increases gun crime.

globalwatcherNov. 03, 2013 - 03:02PM JST It could be totally avoided. All she had to do was to get a doctor's paper prior to the flight plan. She was totally just ignorant. She needs to grow up and I have no sympathy.

No, she didn't need a doctor's certificate.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Freedom?? Freedom to do what?? When you want to get on an AIRPLANE kiss your lousy freedom and ARROGANCE good bye! Do I want some idiot fool on my same plane with guns, knives, bombs, etc..HELL NO! If you are too stupid and ignorant and backwards to understand that FREEDOM means learn GROW UP, be an ADULT and get to the airport say 30 minutes or 1 hour earlier than usual to avoid any unneeded stress, hassles etc..The TSA workers already have a stressful job, having to deal with all kinds of stupid people with stupid problems. Oh you do not want to take off your shoes?? WALK to the other side of the USA! Oh, you do not feel like going through the X RAYS?? Cool, get the hell out of the airport and DRIVE to Miami! Oh, you can not be bothered to take off your belt with the HUGE Cowboy belt buckle?? Jump on that old horse and see how fast you can ride from Seattle to San Antonio! These same stupid people who go on about their GOD GIVEN RIGHTS are the same idiot fools who want everybody to be armed to the teeth with AK 47s etc..to shoot any kids at schools who may have a grudge against teachers, students. The entire world is looking at the USA and saying, when oh when will AMERICANS ever learn that REAL FREEDOM is not about bitching and complaining at poor, hard working TSA workers, but growing up and understanding that AL QAEDA etc...the TALIBAN etc..are laughing, enjoying seeing stupid, ignorant Americans fight and bicker with each other about the TSA, freedom etc..all the while they are just planning on HOW TO KILL more and more AMERICANS etc..and when a terrorist gets on your same plane, starts slicing others throats up like poor goats, blood and guts spraying everywhere, see how much you will care about your stupid right to privacy! YOU HAVE NO PRIVACY WHEN YOU FLY, you should not have any why??? You or the guy next to you can be the next OSAMA BIN LADEN,etc...KABOOM!! Sayonara! GAME OVER! No way to press RE START because your head has just been blown off!! ¿¿Comprende amigo?? MY RIGHT to get from point A to point B is more important than the silly rights of some idiot fool who does not want to have their Apple AirPad passing through X rays at LAX, JFK etc...

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

globalwatcherNov. 03, 2013 - 03:02PM JST It could be totally avoided. All she had to do was to get a doctor's paper prior to the flight plan. She was totally just ignorant. She needs to grow up and I have no sympathy.

No, she didn't need a doctor's certificate.

Passengers are not allowed to carry more than 8 oz of liquid in carry on luggage. But with doctor's paper explaining what it is, she could of., I carry my CPAP machine in my carry on luggage with doctor's paper. I have no problem.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Nope, what I'm saying is that if this isn't a good use of the 2nd amendment then there are no good uses of the 2nd amendment and it should be scrapped.

Personally, I have never felt the need or desire to possess a gun. I am not a gun person. However, I just read the 2nd amendment online and it says nothing about murdering people being okay. Having a right to own something and using that something to murder someone are two different things. Perhaps you would have made a more successful argument if you had talked about the increasing need for better licensing proceedures or something like that. Instead you went on about a rant about TSA employees. Hardly an effective argument tactic. Anyway, I think a little bit of thought toward the victims is not too much to expect.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

slumdogNov. 03, 2013 - 05:32PM JST Personally, I have never felt the need or desire to possess a gun. I am not a gun person. However, I just read the 2nd amendment online and it says nothing about murdering people being okay.

So the 2nd amendment provides guns to citizens to... what? Wave them at repressive governments and hope they say, "Wow, look at all those guns, let's leave quietly!".

No. The intent was that the guns would be used to shoot and kill tyrannical governments and their officials. This is what most people who defend the 2nd amendment don't realise, probably because they're too mentally impaired to move past, "Guns good", and contemplate that the 2nd amendment is talking about civil war, where citizens would rise up and KILL officials of a corrupt and tyrannical government. Individuals such as soldiers, police officers, and yes, TSA officials.

This is the bloody and unpleasant reality behind the 2nd amendment. That most people cannot grasp this reality and insist that owning guns is just about a little weekend hunting and home defence just shows that most people in favor of the 2nd amendment don't really understand the 2nd amendment.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The intent was that the guns would be used to shoot and kill tyrannical governments and their officials.

As I said, I just read it and it said no such thing. Perhaps this is your personal interpretation?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Nostromo: American culture of killing people? You think only Americans can kill another person? That's a silly statement. Americans have more guns than representatives of some other nations and some crazy people seem to use them from time to time in a completely random and unreasonable shootings. But think about the Jihad - holy war of the form of Islam that glorifies aggression towards non-believers and is politically involved. And emotionally unstable nationalists of all kinds who would like to kill everyone they don't approve because otherwise they won't feel "safe" (in fact they will never feel safe). Culture of killing isn't just american. It's a way of life that people are taught by their significant others, sometimes by official institutions. People are taught it, and then act accordingly. And that's the real problem. Is the access to weapons also a problem? Potentially every solid object can be a cause of death - but people are taught not to use them that way. I think that in the american case the problem is that the american protestant based model of morality is fading away and people are left alone with their problems as there are no functional institutions or family to help them. But I totally agree with the fact that people are responsible for the death of others. If someone doesn't believe me than let me get to the peak of the mountain of literalism. When it comes to guns, bullets kill one people after some other people got a weapon, pointed it at the person they wanted to kill or not, had bullets loaded, consciously pulled the trigger being aware of the consequences and shot the bullet causing immediate fatal injuries or bleeding resulting in death - that is lack of symptoms of life such as body warmth, breathing, pulse, reaction to stimulus, electrical brain activity and else. From this line of thinking it's clear that the person who shot bears 100% responsibility for the death of other person, because he or she started the deadly chain of reactions. Other case is if the person feels responsible. Last but not lease. I was wondering if the attacker was playing the game "Papers, please" where there is a similar motive of a terrorists shooting at a border gateway. For an unstable person every random suggestion of a crime can be a motive for realising it. Something like a conversation overheard in a cafe (motive from Crime and Punishment).

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Sorry, I still don't get the morbid attempt at humor.

You think your right to take water and breast milk on a commercial flight are things to laugh about? Or you think I do?

Well I can tell you straight up that I don't.

How long has this been going on? I know, all I do is complain on the internet. I should have done more. I hoped this silliness would get clear up with out shooting people. But that is not what happened.

We are all going to have buck up and live with the fact of what did happen. That said, I am not about to pin a medal on his chest, but I sure hope the message got through and is heeded.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

slumdogNov. 03, 2013 - 05:46PM JST

The intent was that the guns would be used to shoot and kill tyrannical governments and their officials.

As I said, I just read it and it said no such thing. Perhaps this is your personal interpretation?

No, this was the intent of the 2nd amendment when it was signed into law:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. Noah Webster

Disarm the people. that is the best and most effective way to enslave them. James Madison

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Misattributed to Thomas Jefferson, what he actually wrote was, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands]"

There are many more quotes by influential Americans at the time, but the intent of the 2nd amendment was clear, to allow the people to resist tyranny by government. The amendment was passed at the time when the first U.S. army was being created, and there was fear that the army would be used against the people.

There is no question of interpretation here, it is a matter of historical fact. What most pro-2nd amendment individuals cannot grasp is that the incidents described in this newspaper report were the logical consequence of the 2nd amendment. Civil war is a nasty and bloody business, something that the people writing the constitution knew all too well, but a fact that is so far removed from modern American society that it has been forgotten.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

You think your right to take water and breast milk on a commercial flight are things to laugh about?

I see nothing wrong with inspections to make sure things are safe before a flight. I think making jokes about it does nothing useful.

I hoped this silliness would get clear up with out shooting people. But that is not what happened.

You honestly think this is about a man not liking the inspection system and deciding the best way to show it is not needed would be to shoot some airport officials? And you somehow seem to agree with him with your comment above. It does not make sense on a variety of levels.

There is no question of interpretation here

Tell that to all the legal minds that still debate it to this day, particularly the phrasing about militias.

What most pro-2nd amendment individuals cannot grasp is that the incidents described in this newspaper report were the logical consequence of the 2nd amendment. Civil war is a nasty and bloody business, something that the people writing the constitution knew all too well, but a fact that is so far removed from modern American society that it has been forgotten.

One person going on a personal killing spree is not a civil war, it is a personal one. You fail to see the difference. I agree with your position on guns, but I disagree with its presentation. I also still question your above rant about TSA officials as it seems you support the actions of this man based on one youtube video. This man was obviously a seriously disturbed individual and your posts that seem to be attempting to create logical reasons why he did what he did are not only off base, but are inappropriate.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Readers, please stop bickering.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

slumdogNov. 03, 2013 - 07:05PM JST Tell that to all the legal minds that still debate it to this day, particularly the phrasing about militias.

The bit about militias is because that's how the war of independence was fought, the US's only experience at that time of opposing tyranny. The presence of a debate does not indicate any substance to an argument, merely that some people disagree. This is like trying to argue that whether the moon is made of green cheese or not is in doubt simply because one person insists it is.

One person going on a personal killing spree is not a civil war, it is a personal one. You fail to see the difference.

You're willfully misrepresenting my argument. The means by which he acquired the gun was the 2nd amendment, which makes this a 2nd amendment matter.

I agree with your position on guns, but I disagree with its presentation. I also still question your above rant about TSA officials as it seems you support the actions of this man based on one youtube video.

I disapprove of the TSA because of their policies and abuses of power. The organisation goes not magically get my support because some of its members were killed. By your logic if a KKK member was killed I should suddenly support them? Don't be silly.

This man was obviously a seriously disturbed individual and your posts that seem to be attempting to create logical reasons why he did what he did are not only off base, but are inappropriate.

Obviously seriously disturbed? Can I see your qualifications please, because I sincerely doubt you're qualified to make any statements as to this individual's mental health.

He might instead rather simply be someone who has been pushed too far, like postal workers who "go postal". Most of them were sane, but simply had been pushed around one time too many. The TSA's list of abuses of authority are well documented and numerous, and the lack of accountability might easily lead someone to take vigilante action. I do not approve of the action, HOWEVER this is where we come full-circle to the 2nd amendment, which is at its core an endorsement of vigilante action, equipping and empowering the citizens of the U.S. to take justice into their own hands when they feel that their government has become tyrannical.

This is really the heart of the matter, that the U.S. legal system has encoded in its fabric a clause by which this sort of action could be justified by a citizen. It is for this reason that I find the 2nd amendment such a poisonous clause.

... and no, I still don't like or approve of the TSA. I sincerely believe that they are an organ of the U.S. government that regularly violates citizens' rights and are not held accountable. Without accountability this sort of tragedy was inevitable, although honestly I did not expect a pre-planned attack like this, but rather expected some outraged individual beating one of the TSA officials to death with a piece of carry-on luggage.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I'm guessing he didn't like how his pat down went the last he was there

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Obviously seriously disturbed?

Yes, that we disagree on this tells me further discussion will bear no fruit. FYI, sane does not mean the absence of mental illness.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

slumdogNov. 03, 2013 - 07:54PM JST Yes, that we disagree on this tells me further discussion will bear no fruit. FYI, sane does not mean the absence of mental illness.

Sane is defined as:

(of a person) of sound mind; not mad or mentally ill.

So yes, it does mean the absence of mental illness.

Vigilantes can be perfectly sane.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

So yes, it does mean the absence of mental illness.

Sorry, you are mistaken. A depressed person can be sane for example. Please look things up more carefully. It is hard to discuss things with someone who will not take the time to understand the subject matter.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It's not hard to find the motive here. Look at all the wingnut Facebook groups talking about gearing up for revolution and whatnot. Most of them are just overweight basement dwelling keyboard warriors, but they are bound to convince one nut every once in a while to do something.

However, they do have a basic point in that gun free zones are almost always where you see these types of crimes, since criminals know there will be no one to stop them. We do need to allow concealed and open carry everywhere (including on airplanes) in order to ensure these crimes stop. The founders knew this, and that's why they blessed us with the Second Amendment.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Ah, he could have done the exact same damage with a foam baseball bat, right?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

slumdogNov. 03, 2013 - 08:08PM JST Sorry, you are mistaken. A depressed person can be sane for example. Please look things up more carefully. It is hard to discuss things with someone who will not take the time to understand the subject matter.

... you're arguing with a dictionary definition:

 Sane is defined as: (of a person) of sound mind; not mad or mentally ill.

The arrogance of arguing with a dictionary is... well, mind-boggling, as well as fruitless.

As for a depressed person being sane... well, if you're talking about having a bad day or even a bad week then that's true, but if you're talking about someone with clinical depression then you're wrong. That doesn't necessarily make them insane, merely no longer mentally healthy, in the same way that you can have a cough and be healthy if its because you just inhaled some water, but be sick if your cough is from a cold, and unhealthy if you have TB. There's a question of degrees that you just don't seem to grasp and seem to be eager to reduce to a simple binary state.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The CIA, NSA, DHS, TSA, ICE, etc..... My country is turning into a police state one President at a time. I sure hope the government never bans guns. We all mostly live in the now, IMO, and forget how easily governments, dictators, movements, can sweep the population into a prison state. How many years have the Palestinians been living like this, while the rest of the modern world tweets, texts, and ignores this abomination. I'm sick of it!

The crazy man with the gun was wrong, but this type of revenge was bound to occur sooner or later.

The Department of Homeland Security was created in the wake of 911. And after watching the video of building number seven fall straight down, it's quite obvious that their was prior knowledge by someone. What's their endgame?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The arrogance of arguing with a dictionary is... well, mind-boggling, as well as fruitless.

Sorry, you are mistaken and you are out of your league. 'Insane' is a legal term. It is not a medical term. Having a mental illness is a medical condition. Being judged to be insane is a legal definition. This man could be sane and have a mental illness. However, a person that is judged to be insane most definitely is suffering from a mental illness.

As for a depressed person being sane... well, if you're talking about having a bad day or even a bad week then that's true, but if you're talking about someone with clinical depression then you're wrong. That doesn't necessarily make them insane, merely no longer mentally healthy,

Reread what you wrote. It does not even make logic sense, nevermind medical sense. Allow me to paraphrase what you wrote: 'If I am talking about someone with clinical depression, than they are not sane. That does not necessarily make them insane.' Huh?

Again, you clearly do not know what you are talking about here.

I have a huge problem with a few people here who are justifying the murder of people because they do not like they way they do their jobs. What is next? Are you going to justify people shooting others because they don't like the service at other places, too? This was wrong. Plain wrong. There is no, I repeat, no justification for it.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

slumdogNov. 03, 2013 - 10:04PM JST Sorry, you are mistaken and you are out of your league.

ROFL!!!!!

'Insane' is a legal term.

No, it is NOT. You see this is why they add the word "legally" on the front when they want to make that distinction, as in "legally sane" or "legally insane", because it clearly shows that the word is being used in a specific context and according to a specific, non-standard, definition. You did not add the word "legally" on to the word so you're the one who is mistaken and out of his depth.

It is not a medical term.

Actually the term is used in medical circles as well, usually with specific modifiers such as "clinically sane", "clinically insane", and so forth.

Having a mental illness is a medical condition.

You didn't add any specific modifier so the common definition applies. In case you're incapable of scrolling up that definition is:

Sane is defined as: (of a person) of sound mind; not mad or mentally ill.

Now on to the next mistake.

Being judged to be insane is a legal definition.

Actually no. The word can be used in a number of different ways, and often with different criteria applying. One can be considered "not drunk" by one's friends, and even test "not intoxicated" in a doctor's opinion, but still be "legally drunk". Different criteria apply, which is why we use the signifiers.

Even if we were using the legal definition (which I wasn't and you are not because you've failed to attach the appropriate signifier) that judgement is not made by a lawyer or a judge. Rather a qualified expert, such as a psychiatrist, certifies the person insane and then the judge rubber-stamps that diagnosis. Why? Because a judge has the professional integrity to realise that he or she is not an expert on mental health and thus defers to someone who is. As such the legal definition of insanity is SUBSIDIARY to the medical definition.

This man could be sane and have a mental illness.

He wouldn't have a clinically diagnosed mental illness if he was sane. The terms are mutually exclusive. One either has a mental illness sufficient severe to merit a formal diagnosis and treatment (in which case you are no longer strictly speaking clinically or commonly sane), or the impairment is not sufficiently serious to merit a diagnosis.

However, a person that is judged to be insane most definitely is suffering from a mental illness.

Yes, but we weren't talking about insane, we were talking about sane. Notice the lack on "in" in front of the word sane? They're two completely different words, and two completely different things, which you seem to be unable to comprehend.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

From wiki, but feel free to choose any other source:

In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity

2 ( +3 / -1 )

slumdogNov. 03, 2013 - 10:57PM JST From wiki, but feel free to choose any other source: In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity

Yes, it is avoided because it is imprecise and generally not useful.

However it IS still used, such as in the case of justifying involuntary commitment or where an individual poses a plausible danger to themselves but there hasn't been time or an opportunity for a specific diagnosis. If someone is bought into a clinic muttering about "bats! bats!" and clawing at their own eyes it would be extremely unprofessional to leap to a diagnosis of schizophrenia, or any other specific diagnosis, but if the toxin screen comes up negative then the term "clinically insane" is attached to the chart pending a more specific diagnosis. This allows the psychiatrist to admit the patient to the psychiatric wing of the hospital for observation and to be restrained, but without exposing the psychiatrist to the threat of a malpractice suit for an incorrect diagnosis.

Oh, and let me repeat, the term under discussion was "sane", not "insane". Your attempt to pull a switch and claim that was what we had been arguing all along is dishonest. The term "clinically sane" is used as well, although again it is generally not preferred because it is so vague.

Clearly you're out of your depth on this subject matter.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Insanity is no longer considered a medical diagnosis but is a legal term in the United States, stemming from its original use in common law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity

That word, of course, is “insanity.” I am sure it would come as no surprise to most of you that, in 2004, insanity is considered a legal term.

http://www.jaapl.org/content/33/2/252.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=40&minscore=5000&resourcetype=HWCIT

Oh, and let me repeat, the term under discussion was "sane", not "insane". Your attempt to pull a switch and claim that was what we had been arguing all along is dishonest.

In legal terms, sane is the opposite of insane. Neither are medical terms. Prove me wrong please.

Your incorrect insistence, with no support for your argument, that being 'sane' and having a mental illness are mutually exclusive is medically incorrect. Prove me wrong, please. It is indeed possible and even likely that someone can be clinically depressed and indeed be sane. Prove me wrong, please.

Please do not use your own words, please back them up with medical proof.

While people are often found 'sane' to stand trial, they very often have mental illnesses. Again, prove me wrong, please.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Perhaps part of his motive (the thing that induced him to do it) was the fact that he knew he could do it because getting a gun is just too easy in the U.S. He killed one person but it could easily have been 10 or 20. Time to wake up America. This will keep on happening until you realize that no guns is the ideal to strive for. Obama knows it but there are still too many idiots who can't see it yet and don't want their deadly toys taken from them.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The Concise Medical Dictionary declares that insanity refers to, “A degree of mental illness such that the affected individual is not responsible for his actions or is not capable of entering into a legal contract. The term is a legal rather than a medical one.”11 Similar definitions can be found in other standard medical dictionaries as well as in dictionaries that are compiled for the general public. The more scholarly of these publications occasionally mention that the term once had a medical meaning, but quickly point out that such usage is obsolete. Legal dictionaries contain no such disclaimer.

http://www.jaapl.org/content/33/2/252.full

Any medical professional using the words 'sane' or 'insane' as medical terms needs to go back to school.

In any case, I think it is indeed possible that this person has a mental illness.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Remember posters guns don't kill people do and KNIVES don't kill people do whether its a gun in the US or a knife or jumping in front of a train in Japan you HAVE to blame the person not the weapon of choice. The end result is death as of a result of the choice of weapon it depends where you live and the freedom of choice. Regardless of where you live death is death whether its done by a knife or a gun "one poster said he feels much safer getting from from point A to point B. Hell i feel living safer in Seattle than living in Mexico who is to say you can or can not be taken out by some act Of God and you never leave point A we take a chance everyday we wake up the next day is never promised. Lets not blame who has the most guns or who has the most knives if anything blame the person. I know one thing if i had my choice of weapon I would take a gun over a knife any time. The more educated you are about guns the safer and more rational you are people buy them for different reasons just as well as people buy knives for different reasons. Believe me if its not a gun or a knife man would find a way to kill its our nature so it is what it is

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Outlaw guns in the USA and guess who will still be using them? Answer: The ones most likely to kill people with them. The criminals.

The occasional "deranged" citizen will find other methods of impact for their messages. It needs not be with a gun.

Better question is this, why is Homeland Security arming like a branch of the military? Scary!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Outlaw guns in the USA and guess who will still be using them? Answer: The ones most likely to kill people with them. The criminals.

But I have heard nothing suggesting Ciancia obtained his guns illegally. Nothing to suggest he was a career criminal.

Most people are murdered by their spouses. Most murders in America are done using guns. Most spouses are not career criminals, nor are most spousal murders committed by career criminals. They are usually law abiding citizens labelled as criminals after the fact. Since guns make killing easy, without guns, many would give up their plan to murder. Some will of course turn to knives, etc, but its easier to run away from knives, etc. or hide behind a door while making a cell phone call to the police.

The occasional "deranged" citizen will find other methods of impact for their messages. It needs not be with a gun.

But a gun makes all the difference. Facing facts, Ciancia could have done a hell of a lot more damage, but his targets were not passengers. It it were, it would have been a bloodbath.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

But I have heard nothing suggesting Ciancia obtained his guns illegally. Nothing to suggest he was a career criminal.

Well the gun he had in possession in California was illegal. No it does not appear he was a career criminal, thankfully those types of murderers are rare. It is very rare for someone with no criminal background to commit homicide as their first violent crime.

Most people are murdered by their spouses.

According to the FBI only 14% of homicide victims are murdered by a family member in the US. According to the FBI in 2011 of the 12,664 homicide victims a grand total of 660 were murdered by a spouse. An acquaintance is the largest single source of murderers

Most spouses are not career criminals, nor are most spousal murders committed by career criminals. They are usually law abiding citizens labelled as criminals after the fact. Since guns make killing easy, without guns, many would give up their plan to murder.

Actually most of them are people who for years have been physically abusive in their relationship(s), and have a misdemeanor violent crime charge somewhere in their criminal history, it is just that the background check only checks for people who are married and have physically beaten a spouse, it doesn't check for non-spousal relationship abuses. Russia's spousal homicide statistics would also disagree with you on them giving up their plan to murder if they didn't have a gun. It is not exactly difficult to wait for your spouse to fall asleep and then just stab them in the throat or buy an Ax at the local hardware store and do the same thing.

Some will of course turn to knives, etc, but its easier to run away from knives, etc. or hide behind a door while making a cell phone call to the police.

And exactly how many spouses, wives, are able to escape/outrun their spouse/husbands who use knives when attempting to the kill them? I got a real strong feeling it is very small number are able to successfully outrun them. Yes run behind the hollow core door and call the cops by which time she will already be dead because he has kicked down the door, because it is a hollow core door, and stabbed her death within the 5 minutes it took the police to get to her.

But a gun makes all the difference.

Anything used as a weapon makes all the difference.

Facing facts, Ciancia could have done a hell of a lot more damage, but his targets were not passengers. It it were, it would have been a bloodbath.

Yes he could have and that should tell you just how much is dependent upon the user not the tool/weapon used.

He could have also done a hell of a lot more damage if he used pressure cooker bombs rather than use a firearm. Or he could have done a hell of a lot more damage if he used one of these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJXM7j3OKII

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Again guns don't kill knives don't kill they just be the weapon of choice by some person who lost it and use those weapons of choice to ace out someone

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites