Airport Shooting - Page 4 - Shooters Forum
» Advanced

Go Back   Shooters Forum > General > General Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Donate Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Like Tree54Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old 01-10-2017, 03:50 AM
60DRB's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: SE Alabama
Posts: 859

Registered Users do not see the above ad.


"A voluntary commitment for mental health issues, even when hearing voices to join terrorist organizations isn't enough to have to your guns kept from you. The sheriff in that county is calling for a change in the law, as are others."

Again, a broad brush. Many people seek counseling at some point in their lives, for various reasons. By definition, a mental health issue- receiving counseling. They may seek counsel from friends, church, family or "formal" routes. Most people who do this are not, nor ever will become, dangerous. Self seeking help is a healthy path.
__________________
My opinion is not a personal attack.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-10-2017, 05:35 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North America
Posts: 3,774
Talking about drugs???

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Exactly, it is a great trap for gun control. Doctors push pills, discover that some people on the pills go on homicidal / suicidal ramages.... then "oops, guess we better punish anyone who ever took them, by taking their guns away and denying them the right to self-defense."
When drugs are brought up by a mod it's OK, when I brought up medical/legal MJ as it RELATES to firearms, my post got locked down FAST. NOT BOARD RELATED it was said. Drugs are in our lives, (legal & non legal ones)whether you like to believe it or not. THEY DO have a relationship with our gun carrying. Had this shooter been on meds, the shooting may never have happened. If you took the time to read the info (package inserts RE potential side effects & warnings) provided with every prescription you take, many warn against "operating heavy equipment". It's true enough that SOME people taking certain drugs MAY go homicidal, just as SOME people NOT taking them go homicidal I think firearms & drugs seems board related to me. In this particular case (THE OP) it seems several people dropped the ball, primarily the FBI & TSA. If the laws already on the books were followed & TSA noticed the red flags, we might have had a different ending. With all due respect to our Vets, I hope this guy didn't get a free pass, or treated differently because he was a Vet.

Last edited by nachogrande; 01-10-2017 at 05:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:09 AM
dmsbandit's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tnhunter View Post
Latest reports are that the shooter of several passengers waiting for luggage at the Ft Lauderdale airport was a passenger who had flown into Ft Lauderdale with a declared firearm. Reports are 5 dead, 8 injured. Shooter is alive.

This may not bode well for future traveling with firearms.

Added: New reports have the shooter flying in from Alaska and having a legally checked firearm he secured after the flight, loaded at the airport and then turned on other passengers.
he also used his military ID, and listed his religion as Sunni Muslim. Anyone surprised by that???
__________________
"I don't drink or smoke, I spend my money on gunpowder and gasoline."
Reply With Quote
 
  #64  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:17 AM
MikeG's Avatar
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 32,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachogrande View Post
When drugs are brought up by a mod it's OK, when I brought up medical/legal MJ as it RELATES to firearms, my post got locked down FAST. NOT BOARD RELATED it was said. Drugs are in our lives, (legal & non legal ones)whether you like to believe it or not. THEY DO have a relationship with our gun carrying. Had this shooter been on meds, the shooting may never have happened. If you took the time to read the info (package inserts RE potential side effects & warnings) provided with every prescription you take, many warn against "operating heavy equipment". It's true enough that SOME people taking certain drugs MAY go homicidal, just as SOME people NOT taking them go homicidal I think firearms & drugs seems board related to me. In this particular case (THE OP) it seems several people dropped the ball, primarily the FBI & TSA. If the laws already on the books were followed & TSA noticed the red flags, we might have had a different ending. With all due respect to our Vets, I hope this guy didn't get a free pass, or treated differently because he was a Vet.
Or it happened because he was "on his meds." The "meds" currently prescribed for various mental illnesses DO list side effects of suicidal/homicidal behavior (serotonin reuptake inhibitors a.k.a. SRI) and if you read between the lines of practically any mass shooting, it becomes clear that the shooter likely was taking some of them. "Was known to have mental health issues" is the code phrase, and what do people in this country take for "mental health issues?" SRIs. Doctors hand them out like candy. But the press accepts advertising from the companies making them so they don't report any more than that. Don't want to bite the hand that feeds you, ya know... sad the state of "journalism" these days, when it comes to reporting accurately on anything involving firearms.

Let's let the process work and figure out WHERE the breakdown was, before adding to the tens of thousands of gun control laws that already didn't prevent this tragedy.
__________________
MikeG

Quote:
Originally Posted by faucettb
Welcome to the forum. Rules are simple, be nice and join in.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:33 AM
MikeG's Avatar
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 32,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by BearBear View Post
I've told the story here before, but many years ago there was some terrible shooting tragedy somewhere in the country and the mayor of our small city made a big show of destroying his .22 revolver to show how people should disdain guns. I wrote a letter to the editor that was published suggesting that, if the mayor did not trust himself with a gun, he should rid his house of knives and hammers as well.
Idiocy reigns supreme.
It does, BearBear. The relentless march of the anti-gun crowd never ceases and they know, for every illogical and emotionally based public spectacle they put on, millions of gun-hating voters will lap it up.

That's why they do it. It reinforces the culture of paranoia and loathing that the gun-hating crowd has. Doesn't take much to play to the emotions of those with phobias, does it?
Tnhunter likes this.
__________________
MikeG

Quote:
Originally Posted by faucettb
Welcome to the forum. Rules are simple, be nice and join in.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:37 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North America
Posts: 3,774
I (never) suggested adding new laws!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Or it happened because he was "on his meds." The "meds" currently prescribed for various mental illnesses DO list side effects of suicidal/homicidal behavior (serotonin reuptake inhibitors a.k.a. SRI) and if you read between the lines of practically any mass shooting, it becomes clear that the shooter likely was taking some of them. "Was known to have mental health issues" is the code phrase, and what do people in this country take for "mental health issues?" SRIs. Doctors hand them out like candy. But the press accepts advertising from the companies making them so they don't report any more than that. Don't want to bite the hand that feeds you, ya know... sad the state of "journalism" these days, when it comes to reporting accurately on anything involving firearms.

Let's let the process work and figure out WHERE the breakdown was, before adding to the tens of thousands of gun control laws that already didn't prevent this tragedy.
There is NOTHING "clear" about it! SIDE EFFECTS are Potential & do not happen in the majority of cases. Now I have no love for the FDA, but if side effects were the norm rather than the exception the drug would never (hopefully) be approved by the FDA for use/sale.This is certainly not a good place to be "reading between the lines". If you read my post CAREFULLY I stated (bad behavior) can be a result from TAKING meds or NOT TAKING them. An anti psychotic that may stop "the voices" ain't necessarily a bad thing. POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECTS are many, and stated quickly at the end of commercials, like fine print. My favorite would be "in rare cases may cause death". These "potential" side effects are listed in the package insert & on the pharmacy paperwork when you get your pills. MOST PEOPLE choose not to read them or ignore them, just like cigarette boxes list "may cause cancer". People are different & going to react to the same meds differently. Are you suggesting a mentally ill Pt go off his meds? YEAH that usually works out well.

Last edited by nachogrande; 01-10-2017 at 06:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:38 AM
MikeG's Avatar
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 32,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmsbandit View Post
he also used his military ID, and listed his religion as Sunni Muslim. Anyone surprised by that???
Ah some of the truth come out. The media spectacle that starts off with "soldier pulls gun out of baggage and shoots up airport" should have been reported as "islamic terrorist carries out well-planned attack on defenseless people."

But the first headline will stir up calls for gun control; the second one would not. The first headline suggests that gun ownership is the problem; the second clearly identifies lack of vigilance as a factor and also people lacking the means to protect themselves against suicidal terrorists.
__________________
MikeG

Quote:
Originally Posted by faucettb
Welcome to the forum. Rules are simple, be nice and join in.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:42 AM
MikeG's Avatar
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 32,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachogrande View Post
This is certainly not a good place to be "reading between the lines" If you read my post CAREFULLY I stated "bad behavior" can be a result from TAKING meds or NOT TAKING them. An anti psychotic that may stop "the voices" ain't necessarily a bad thing. POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECTS are many, and stated quickly at the end of commercials, like fine print. My favorite would be "in rare cases may cause death". These "potential" side effects are listed in the package insert & by the pharmacies that dispense them, MOST PEOPLE choose not to read them or ignore them, just like cigarette boxes list "may cause cancer". People are different & going to react to the same meds differently. Are you suggesting a mentally ill Pt go off his meds? YEAH that usually works out well.
I am suggesting that SRIs are not the panacea that the drug industry has proclaimed them to be; indeed, they may be making the problem worse. Having personally known of people who took their lives while taking "meds" to make them "better" suggests that perhaps we don't really understand the human brain very well and may be, long-term, making problems with society substantially worse.

Ever notice how the age of mass shootings has pretty well started with the age of mass-drugging people for mental health issues? Coincidence?
__________________
MikeG

Quote:
Originally Posted by faucettb
Welcome to the forum. Rules are simple, be nice and join in.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:46 AM
Tnhunter's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 7,070
I am still trying to understand why the shooter still had a military I.D. ?? It is said he is a former member of the Alaska N.G. having been discharged on 16 July 2016. There's no reason for him to still have a military I.D. unless he was medically discharged.
__________________
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote
a blank check made payable to The United States of
America
for an amount of up to and including my life.
That is honor, and there are way too many people in this
country who no longer understand it.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-10-2017, 07:11 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North America
Posts: 3,774
No of course not. Is anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
I am suggesting that SRIs are not the panacea that the drug industry has proclaimed them to be; indeed, they may be making the problem worse. Having personally known of people who took their lives while taking "meds" to make them "better" suggests that perhaps we don't really understand the human brain very well and may be, long-term, making problems with society substantially worse.

Ever notice how the age of mass shootings has pretty well started with the age of mass-drugging people for mental health issues? Coincidence?
I have NO LOVE for big pharm either, but please show me a link, or Any proof where they claimed SRI's are a "universal panacea".
Are ALL the people drinking diet soft drinks at their desired weight? You are 100% correct about our knowledge (or lack there of) of the human brain. One case where the meds made things worse gets much more publicity than the stories of people it helped. What's the alternative? Give no meds & lock all of them up in padded cells? That's why it is called PRACTICING MEDICINE. It would be nice if MD's knew it all & had all the right answers & solutions, BUT THEY DON'T. YOU have the right to refuse ANY "modern" medical care, not have your broken bones set, refuse common surgeries, blood transfusions or meds. Is the medical "profession" perfect, He** no! But research & trial and ERROR goes on.

Last edited by nachogrande; 01-10-2017 at 07:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-10-2017, 10:10 AM
MikeG's Avatar
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 32,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachogrande View Post
I have NO LOVE for big pharm either, but please show me a link, or Any proof where they claimed SRI's are a "universal panacea".
Are ALL the people drinking diet soft drinks at their desired weight? You are 100% correct about our knowledge (or lack there of) of the human brain. One case where the meds made things worse gets much more publicity than the stories of people it helped. What's the alternative? Give no meds & lock all of them up in padded cells? That's why it is called PRACTICING MEDICINE. It would be nice if MD's knew it all & had all the right answers & solutions, BUT THEY DON'T. YOU have the right to refuse ANY "modern" medical care, not have your broken bones set, refuse common surgeries, blood transfusions or meds. Is the medical "profession" perfect, He** no! But research & trial and ERROR goes on.
You have it backwards. Drugs gain FDA approval when the companies submit cherry-picked data that omits failures; when enough tens of thousands of people die from them, eventually the truth bubbles up to the surface (look up Vioxx).

But my point is - let ONE gun kill ONE person in the hands of ONE deranged/terrorist person - and it is the GUN'S fault. People don't kill people, guns do. And all the law-abiding gun owners must suffer further infringements on their rights, even if they weren't involved.

50,000 people die from a particular prescription medication? Oops, that was just an accident. No worries! Drugs don't kill people, accidents do. The company that made that mistake, though, will never suffer nor be held accountable, even if data was omitted/fabricated in the trials.

Why do we only have this double standard with guns? Because the media is largely anti-gun and is biased. And the gun companies don't spend enough on advertising to muzzle them.
Okie Hog likes this.
__________________
MikeG

Quote:
Originally Posted by faucettb
Welcome to the forum. Rules are simple, be nice and join in.

Last edited by MikeG; 01-10-2017 at 10:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-10-2017, 10:42 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Indiana
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooknline View Post
With some 70% of the population on meds for anxiety, depression, etc, how should the law define who gets to have a weapon or who doesn't?

They would have to come up with specific scenarios under which weapons could be confiscated. For example, client A hears voices telling him he's being followed or watched, but nothing pushing him towards violence. Client B hears voices telling him the police are following him and he should resort to violence to stop it. Client A, while still being monitored, doesn't lose his gun rights. Client B, however, gets his guns confiscated until it's determined that the risk for violence subsides. Of course, this is just one scenario. Members of the mental health community would have to take part in crafting the law, both to make sure that it isn't written in such a way that it harms those who pose no real threat while offering a measure of protection from those who do pose a threat.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-10-2017, 10:46 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Indiana
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by BearBear View Post
If all they do is refuse to allow folks to transport firearms in checked luggage it will stop no one from going to the checked luggage carousels with a firearm from the parking lot and opening fire. If they pre-screen before entering the terminal, then huge lines will form outside where cars and trucks (or guns) could be used to terrorize folks. The problem is not airports and not guns. Anywhere large numbers of people gather is an opportunity for a terrorist or madman to use any destructive device available to destroy lives. Even hardening soft targets just moves the targets. Perhaps banning large crowds would be more effective. Unfortunately, we are condemned to live in an age where the rights of the insane and politically radical are paramount to the safety of the citizens.
We would probably have to model airport security after a country like Israel.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-lik...rity-in-Israel
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-10-2017, 10:46 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Southwest PA
Posts: 223
I really don't think anyone actively hearing voices should have a gun that's schizophrenia.
Easternhunter likes this.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-10-2017, 10:54 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Indiana
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
You have some good points.

I can walk into the baggage claim area at the Austin airport, legally, with a (licensed) concealed handgun. And any number of other places where large amounts of people gather - grocery store, church, parking lots, parks, parade watching route, and the list just goes on and on and on and on. Furthermore, anyone who wants to ILLEGALLY carry a gun in those areas, can pretty well do so if they decide to.

The complete absurdity of enacting "one more" law, for only the purpose of foolishly deluding ourselves that people intent on MURDER will instead reconsider, because of a (relatively) minor charge of having a handgun where they shouldn't, never ceases to amaze me.

Good grief... put on your thinking cap (if you have one)... Florida already has the death penalty for murder! One more "law" to address a gun in the unsecured part of the airport? How much more severe will the punishment for the new law have to be, drawing and quartering the accused publicly????

Yes these deaths are tragic - no doubt. But when the media hypes a small number of people who were killed by a nutcase (who was probably going to kill some number of people, somewhere), their motive is clear. They don't care about people dying. They care about pushing their agenda!

There are literally more people killed in this country by prescription opioids, than murdered every year.

https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/

Does the media care about that? Not when they are accepting advertising from the people producing the stuff.....

What about the case we had here some years back, a mother drowning all of her children? Sad, terrible, awful - but there was no hue and cry for more control and distribution of water. A notorious murderer, in prison for dismembering someone with an ax about to face the death penalty (Texas, 1990s, I think) and there was no call for "ax control" by the press. In fact, the press tried to get her pardoned! The press cares very little about anything but furthering their own leftist politics, and protecting their advertising revenue.

Look, the gun ban crowd is not stupid. They are sly, crafty, clever, devious, and fake sincerity to the point that even gun owners believe their garbage. They will continue to beat the drum for gun control - and dupe many gun owners along the way with foolish propaganda, that any thinking person could see right through.

"We have to do something" is the mantra of the uninformed, illogical, emotional respondent. Also the mantra of those pushing their gun control agenda. And naturally, the segment of the population that is afraid of guns, will support it all anyway. That's a powerful 1-2-3 punch that gun owners need to be aware of, and speak out to put a stop to.

When there is a 'sanity gage' on every person's forehead, or perhaps a dipstick to check it with.... then I think there is something to go on as far as preventing the mentally ill from having firearms. Either that, or go back to institutionalizing anyone suspected of being mentally ill. Given how little we know about how the human brain works, I kinda doubt either will be a good solution anytime soon.

But gun owners will foolishly blame themselves and support the "we have to DO something" crowd, if they don't stop and think about it.
It's not a matter of just enacting one more law. What needs to happen is a complete revamping of our approach to gun ownership that keeps our right to bear arms intact while providing better controls over weapons making their way into the wrong hands.

Also, quite a bit is being said in the media about the opioid problem, particularly prescription opioids. State legislatures have begun addressing the issue, including here in Indiana.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 01-10-2017, 10:59 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Indiana
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60DRB View Post
"A voluntary commitment for mental health issues, even when hearing voices to join terrorist organizations isn't enough to have to your guns kept from you. The sheriff in that county is calling for a change in the law, as are others."

Again, a broad brush. Many people seek counseling at some point in their lives, for various reasons. By definition, a mental health issue- receiving counseling. They may seek counsel from friends, church, family or "formal" routes. Most people who do this are not, nor ever will become, dangerous. Self seeking help is a healthy path.
Talk about broad brushing! lol I never said that anyone seeking mental health counseling should be restricted from having guns. There's a big difference between someone seeing a psychiatrist for depression and someone ending up in a mental hospital because of schizophrenia.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-10-2017, 11:02 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Indiana
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmsbandit View Post
he also used his military ID, and listed his religion as Sunni Muslim. Anyone surprised by that???
I don't know where you read that, but Santiago is a native born Puerto Rican. I'm Puerto Rican, and can tell you that I have never met a Muslim one, let alone a Sunni Muslim one. Ya might want to check your source.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-10-2017, 11:04 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Indiana
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Ah some of the truth come out. The media spectacle that starts off with "soldier pulls gun out of baggage and shoots up airport" should have been reported as "islamic terrorist carries out well-planned attack on defenseless people."

But the first headline will stir up calls for gun control; the second one would not. The first headline suggests that gun ownership is the problem; the second clearly identifies lack of vigilance as a factor and also people lacking the means to protect themselves against suicidal terrorists.

Except it wouldn't be true, Mike. Now who's blinding accepting lies as facts?
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-10-2017, 11:11 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Indiana
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzer View Post
I really don't think anyone actively hearing voices should have a gun that's schizophrenia.
I've worked at a community mental health center, and most schizophrenics don't hear voices urging them to commit violence. Some, however, do, and it's reflected in their behavior even while on meds. Most of them go on and on about whatever their particular delusion is, but pose no real threat. By the time they actually get help, a history of whether they're violent or not already exists.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-10-2017, 11:20 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzer View Post
I really don't think anyone actively hearing voices should have a gun that's schizophrenia.
That is why "good guys" carry guns grizzer. So as to stop "bad guys" that should not. Can make it as illegal as you can stand it for bad guys, but they just don't care. Is sorta why they are so in love with being the only ones armed in these "gun free zones". Is similar to tying a sheep to a stake in lion territory. Is bait pure and simple.

A sorta "obscure" provision of the 2nd amendment is your right to be the bait if you choose to do so. That is a choice though. Good about that.

Cheezywan
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shooting With My 'New' Eye HiDesertHunter General Discussion 5 09-07-2016 06:17 PM
Caldwell?s Shooting Benchrest Lead-Sled AllOutdoor.com All Outdoor 1 05-06-2016 04:51 AM
Shooting from Shooting Sticks AllOutdoor.com All Outdoor 0 12-01-2015 04:30 PM
Starting to lose my interest in shooting.... Glock 23C General Discussion 87 08-14-2015 08:58 AM
shooting paper plates off shooting sticks cayugad Muzzleloaders 5 05-01-2011 06:10 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:02 AM.

< Contact Us - Shooters Forum - Archive - Privacy Statement >

 
 

All Content & Design Copyright © 1999-2002 Beartooth Bullets, All Rights Reserved
Privacy Statement | Contact Webmaster
Website Design & Development By Exbabylon Internet Solutions
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1