Update: Possible Active Shooter Reported at YouTube HQ (theverge.com) 788
Police have responded to multiple 911 calls at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California. From a report: Vadim Lavrusik, a product manager at the company, tweeted that there is an active shooter on campus. The San Bruno Police Department instructed people to stay away from 901 Cherry Avenue, where the company is located. Multiple 911 calls have been received from inside the building, according to a report from local news station KRON. In a Twitter thread, YouTube product manager Todd Sherman said that employees first thought there had been an earthquake. People began running out of their meetings, he said, but before reaching the exit, they got word that someone had a gun. Sherman said he saw blood on the floor and the stairs. He also said the shooter may have committed suicide. Vadim Lavrusik, who works at YouTube's products team, tweeted, "Active shooter at YouTube HQ. Heard shots and saw people running while at my desk. Now barricaded inside a room with coworkers."
Update 20:30 GMT: Google has issued the following statement, "we are coordinating with authorities and will provide official information here from Google and YouTube as it becomes available." San Bruno Police said it was "responding to an active shooter. Please stay away from Cherry Ave & Bay Hill Drive."
Update 20:40 GMT: CBS San Francisco reports: KPIX 5 reporter Andria Borba said at least two Homeland Security units were responding. Police radio transmissions describe casualties being taken to local hospitals. San Francisco General Hospital spokesman Brent Andrew said the hospital received patients from the incident but could not confirm a number. Update 21:20 GMT: ABC News is reporting that the suspected shooter is a white adult female, and that this is "leaning towards a workplace violence situation."
Update 21:30 GMT: Law enforcement has confirmed that the shooter was a white female dressed in a headscarf. The woman reportedly shot her boyfriend then herself. It's unclear exactly how many people have been injured, but early reports estimate at least 9-10 victims. There is no word on their conditions.
Update 03:10 GMT: ABC7 News is reporting that the shooter has been identified as Nasim Aghdam. She reportedly had a website with an alleged manifesto that targeted YouTube for censorship and demonetization of her video content. Contrary to previous reports, she is said to have no relationship with anyone in the YouTube facility.
UPDATE 03:40 GMT: Aghdam's website can be found here.
Update 04:15 GMT: The shooter is believed to have known at least one of the victims, two law enforcement officials told CNN. Other sources suggest the shooter drove up from San Diego. YouTube says her YouTube channel "has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and misleading content or other Terms of Service violations."
Update 20:30 GMT: Google has issued the following statement, "we are coordinating with authorities and will provide official information here from Google and YouTube as it becomes available." San Bruno Police said it was "responding to an active shooter. Please stay away from Cherry Ave & Bay Hill Drive."
Update 20:40 GMT: CBS San Francisco reports: KPIX 5 reporter Andria Borba said at least two Homeland Security units were responding. Police radio transmissions describe casualties being taken to local hospitals. San Francisco General Hospital spokesman Brent Andrew said the hospital received patients from the incident but could not confirm a number. Update 21:20 GMT: ABC News is reporting that the suspected shooter is a white adult female, and that this is "leaning towards a workplace violence situation."
Update 21:30 GMT: Law enforcement has confirmed that the shooter was a white female dressed in a headscarf. The woman reportedly shot her boyfriend then herself. It's unclear exactly how many people have been injured, but early reports estimate at least 9-10 victims. There is no word on their conditions.
Update 03:10 GMT: ABC7 News is reporting that the shooter has been identified as Nasim Aghdam. She reportedly had a website with an alleged manifesto that targeted YouTube for censorship and demonetization of her video content. Contrary to previous reports, she is said to have no relationship with anyone in the YouTube facility.
UPDATE 03:40 GMT: Aghdam's website can be found here.
Update 04:15 GMT: The shooter is believed to have known at least one of the victims, two law enforcement officials told CNN. Other sources suggest the shooter drove up from San Diego. YouTube says her YouTube channel "has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and misleading content or other Terms of Service violations."
Maybe someone showed up for their Internet money (Score:3)
I don’t think it’s possible (Score:4, Insightful)
California has pretty strict gun laws. How could anyone get a gun to YouTube HQ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Strict gun laws don’t make us safe?
Re: (Score:2)
No they do not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I don’t think it’s possible (Score:5, Insightful)
The destruction of all morality and complete lack of any personal responsibility. Not to mention a culture that now values being a victim above all else. Zero discipline in schools or at home. The absence of two-parent homes. Etc, etc.
But please, tell us again how this is the fault of an inanimate object.
Re:I don’t think it’s possible (Score:5, Interesting)
I mentioned once to an American that gun laws in Canada require that if you have a gun, you store it unloaded, with a trigger lock AND in a locked gun cabinet. The response was "that's stupid, how do you use it to defend your home?"
So I think you're right. The problem with guns in the US is the attitude towards them. Guns in the US are for protection (i.e. shooting people). Guns in other countries are tools or sporting equipment (i.e. not for shooting people).
Stephen Pinker points out that a good correlate of the violent death rate in a country is the willingness of the populace to trust an authority to resolve their conflicts.
I doubt strong gun control laws in the US will be a quick fix. It takes time to undo a couple of centuries of frontier attitude.
Re:I don’t think it’s possible (Score:5, Insightful)
Stephen Pinker points out that a good correlate of the violent death rate in a country is the willingness of the populace to trust an authority to resolve their conflicts.
Unfortunately, that willingness to trust authority is also what gets you dictators. I suspect if you total the number of people who were killed by dictators, it would be much larger than the number of murders and mass shootings that happened due to private gun ownership. Not to mention all those who died due to poor governance under such regimes. I don't think there's even a way to track that.
Re: (Score:3)
Stephen Pinker points out that a good correlate of the violent death rate in a country is the willingness of the populace to trust an authority to resolve their conflicts.
So the more reliance on authority, the more violent deaths? Wouldn't that suggest that it's wise not to rely on authorities and look out for yourself instead?
Re:I don’t think it’s possible (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not an American. I don't really care what you do, and if you actually read what I said you will observe that I didn't tell anybody they should undo anything.
However, according to polls, the majority of the US population (an overwhelming majority actually), seems to be dissatisfied with daily mass shootings and would like to see that change. The people concerned would like their culture to change.
There is an argument that cultures that promote certain behaviour should be encouraged to change by the international community. I believe the US has been involved in several foreign wars based on this principle.
Re: (Score:3)
I tend to agree, and I would not advocate for humanitarian or ideological military intervention in the US, a la Nicaragua, Vietnam, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Libya, etc. I won't argue with moral pressure though, a la China.
Re: (Score:3)
Which US cities do you think the military would bomb in a civil war? Which neighborhoods would they drive tanks through? Can you explain how you think the "arsenal" would be used in this context?
I don't think you've given it much thought.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I don’t think it’s possible (Score:5, Funny)
We all know gun control isn't the answer. Thoughts and prayers are!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then, why don't all those surrounding and free states have horrible gun deaths and mass shootings all the time?
Re:I don’t think it’s possible (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don’t think it’s possible (Score:5, Informative)
Why should I care about "gun violence"? Shouldn't I be concerned about total violence?
I went to the page you linked to and sorted the list by gun ownership rates and scanned for two states with identical numbers. Here's what I found:
State - gun ownership rate - murder rate
Indiana - 33.8% - 3.1
Iowa - 33.8% - 1.2
Michigan - 28.8% - 5.6
Vermont - 28.8% - 1.1
I then sort by murder rate and find:
State - gun ownership rate - murder rate
Nebraska - 19.8% - 2.8
Rhode Island - 5.8% - 2.8
Alaska - 61.7% - 4.4
New York - 10.3% - 4.4
Arkansas - 57.9% - 4.5
Kentucky - 42.4% - 4.5
Arizona - 32.3% - 4.5
Georgia - 1.6% - 5.3
Delaware - 5.2% - 5.3
I didn't include all the states, people can go to the source to find that if they want. I just wanted to highlight that claiming that gun ownership does not correlate well to murder rates. Just the examples between Alaska and New York is quite telling. People are often aware of the murders in New York because of the high population but it's got no different of a rate than Alaska. Alaska has a gun ownership rate of over 60%. If you subtract the number of people that are too young to buy a gun then that starts to look like nearly every adult in Alaska owns a gun. In Alaska there's no requirement to get a permit to carry a concealed firearm, so it's quite possible a large percentage of people carry their firearms often.
You may be right but only because you defined the parameters by counting only "gun violence". Why should I care about reducing "gun violence" if that just means I get killed by a lead pipe in the study instead of shot by a revolver in the ballroom?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I don’t think it’s possible (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you even read my prior post? Alaska and New York have the same murder rate even though there are six times as many guns per person in Alaska.
You think that maybe it's easier to murder tens of people when the victims have knives instead of guns?
It's probably easier to murder people (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, interestingly, it appears many towns in the midwest with very high rates of gun ownership have murder/rape rates that are astronomically high, much higher than any of the commonly criticized metropolitan areas. Of course all of them put together are less than the populatio
A violation of the TOS? (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't going into YouTube HQ with a loaded gun and shooting people a violation of the terms of service?
Does this gunman not understand that this will almost certainly result in a strike against his account?
Talk about reckless!
The Day the Culture War went hot (Score:2)
Well that, or some random just went crazy. Possibly among the companies own personal.
One thing for certain though: this will go political in about 5 fucking minutes.
Comment removed (Score:3)
SERIOUSLY (Score:5, Insightful)
As one of the most snarky people on Slashdot, and having even first-posted a Youtube joke here, I would like to in all seriousness express my sadness that people were attacked, injured, and I hope they all survive and recover. This is a tragedy, both for the individuals involved and their families, and for our society. I am sure that I can speak for many people, with many opinions about the societal implications and wildly differing views on the etiology of these kinds of attacks, when I say here that we give our condolences to the victims and their loved ones.
I wanted there to be at least one non-political non-asshole comment to this effect on Slashdot.
Shooter is female, shot boyfriend (Score:4, Informative)
Don't have links or citations, I'm watching local TV and radio news here in California. As with early reports of a breaking story, many or all of these details could be wrong. Take with a grain of salt.
- Shooter is described as a white female, wearing a dark headscarf.
- One witness says she shot her boyfriend, 10 times.
- Coroner has been called, so at least one person is dead
- Suspect also reported dead possibly from a self-inflicted wound
- At least 4 bystanders were hit by gunfire
Arm yourself (Score:3)
Arm yourself — police have no obligation to defend you [nytimes.com] and even if they choose to do it, you may not be their top priority [nytimes.com].
Self-defense is an inalienable human right — which also happens to be recorded in America's 2nd Constitutional Amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. OP's post is absolutely accurate.
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/... [lectlaw.com]
Politicizing horrible news. (Score:3)
So over the past few years we've seen article upon article about "white toxic masculinity" causing people to go postal with guns.
While I feel like a ghastly person for doing it, fuck those people who've done this over the years, shaming people for who they are.
Is it time for a 'toxic femininity' article? I doubt it.
Re: (Score:3)
Where are exactly are these toxic masculinity articles you're reading all the time?
Also, let us know when there's another female shooting like this to support your article. You need at least 2 to start I think.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
YouTube would remove such a video, you'll have to check LiveLeak.
Re: (Score:3)
So... never, then.
Great plan.
Re:Tubes, or... (Score:4, Insightful)
The government has no reason to know what property I own, and a gun is nothing more than property, a tool.
There is no good reason for registration other than for potential confiscation.
I don't think they need to know if you want to smoke pot either, none of their fscking business.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tubes, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, honestly, I don't see the need for it really.
It is there mainly as a means of tracking tax revenue IMHO...
However, if you buy a car and don't drive it on public roads, you don't need to register it.
So, as long as I don't use or shoot my guns illegally in public where restricted (analagous to not driving on public roads)....the govt. has no reason to know what or how many I have.
They don't require me to register my knives or hammers in my household, yet those are tools too...and they can even be used to harm or even kill people.
The gun is nothing more than an inanimate tool. I have never once had a problem with any of them spontaneously coming to life and shooting someone or something by themselves.
The gun is nothing more than an inanimate tool. (Score:4, Interesting)
The gun is nothing more than an inanimate tool. I have never once had a problem with any of them spontaneously coming to life and shooting someone or something by themselves.
Bullshit! Yea, well nukes are nothing more than an inanimate tools as well. I have never once had a problem with any of them spontaneously coming to life and nuking someone or something by themselves. Yet I don't see anyone arguing that it should be okay for anyone to walk around with one.
I kinda like taking repeated drunk drivers (Score:3)
I suppose we could do the same thing. You can have your guns without regulation, but as soon as you take it in public it gets confiscated (carrying a gun is equivalent to using it, since as folks like to point out it's a deterrent). This would also mean you can't shoot unregistered guns at a range.
We don't register knives because they're not as dangerous. Same
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, a gun is purposely built and designed to fire a projectile. A slingshot is designed to do the same thing, so is a BB gun, so is a potato gun.
Now, whether you commit a crime and use a gun to kill someone, that's what turns a tool into a deadly object in a criminal use.
It can be used to legally kill some things, like when hunting. But then again, you also
Re: (Score:3)
No, a gun is purposely built and designed to fire a projectile. A slingshot is designed to do the same thing, so is a BB gun, so is a potato gun... So, unless it is used illegally, it is not purpose built to kill.
This is just silly, and makes it seem as though you are being intentionally obtuse. Firearm technology was invented and exists for the sake of causing injury to people or animals. More advanced firearms can cause more injury, faster, and with greater precision and consistency. The same can be said of swords, bow and arrow, or any of the other weapons you describe. The primary utility of any of these is killing something - a bow and arrow that couldn't kill a deer would be a failure for the hunter using it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You realize that the NRA isn't some independent, maniacal entity that magically appeared from nowhere and just runs rampant on its own in the US right?
It is made up of US citizens, it is funded by US citizens to help represent them and their views. It lobbies on behalf of a large number of US citizens to help protect their gun rights.
I hope the government of the US never falls into tyranny, but just in case it does, do look at history and an armed guerrilla has o
Re: Tubes, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can apply the same logic to illegal immigrants flowing into the self proclaimed " Sanctuary State ".
Which is exactly why the rest of the US has problems with CA's stance on it because we know they're just going to end up everywhere else due to CA's high cost of living.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ban all AR-15's
Ban all semi-auto rifles (same as above).
Ban all guns....
Think of the children!!
Wait....it's a chick that did the shooting?
#MeToo
Ban all bad boyfriends, they deserve what they get....
Re: Tubes, or... (Score:3)
That's the worst argument ever. I can save more than one life by tomorrow if I ban cars and liquor.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We tried banning liquor. It didn't work out. We tried banning drugs, and that's not working out either. Read a history book.
I so wish I could moderate up your post.
Banning alcohol didn't reduce crime, quite the opposite. I don't know why people believe a gun ban of any kind would be any more effective.
But we just want to ban the "assault weapons"! Hiram Maxim figured out how to turn a lever action rifle into a machine gun in the 1880s, and he wrote down how to do it. Repeating that feat today with internet access and modern power tools is near trivial. What are they going to do next? Ban every lever action rifle? The Gatli
Re:Tubes, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
So why can't we use the same argument when it comes to stopping illegal immigrants?
How about lowering the speed limit to 55 nation-wide?
We could also use this as a justification for repealing the 4th amendment while we are at it. Let cops pull people over on a hunch. After all, if it saves one innocent life, it'll be worth it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But you ignored the other examples. Only a small percentage of people every year are the subject of a search warrant or probable cause. Therefore, we shouldn't bother with such things, right?
The whole "if it saves even one life" can be used to justify a LOT of things...
Gun control has even CAUSED deaths. One case that I know of in New Jersey where a woman had a restraining order against her ex. She had applied for a gun permit, but was still in process when she was killed. Gun control killed her. If s
Re: (Score:3)
Statistically speaking, this woman had a RESTRAINING ORDER against somebody who had threatened her, which kind of skews the numbers. Shouldn't it have been up to her to make that choice about the relative risks, instead of having the government make her safe while allowing her murder?
http://freebeacon.com/issues/n... [freebeacon.com]
Re:Tubes, or... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok..so, lets get rid of all semi-automatic weapons (after all that is ALL the AR-15 is, it is nothing more).
Even though millions of people own them and responsibly own them, just because a few idiots go off, we have to take away everyones ability to own them?
This is more a people problem than gun problem.
It wasn't that long ago (think 60's-70's) when you could easily buy a gun (pistol or rifle or shotgun) with no background check, at the local hardware store, or even mail order, no problem.
Hell, in High School in the late 70's early 80's, I remember tons of folks parking in the student parking lot with gun racks in their truck, with loaded rifles in them....no problem.
So, with easier access, we had no real problem with mass shootings, and I never heard of one in schools then.
And if you want to go extreme...machine guns.
You know you CAN today own one legally, right?
All you have to do is fill out some ATF forms, pay your $200 tax stamp and you can own and shoot your own machine gun.
The only thing today is, as a civilian, you can only buy ones made before 1986. IN 1986, they snuck in a law (see the Hughes amendment [wikipedia.org]) that said civilians couldn't own full auto weapons (which an AR-15 is not) made before 1986.
Prior to the Hughes amendment in 1986, you could freely buy a brand new machine gun easily. Just pay a tax stamp and fill out a form.
But tell me....can you list a bunch of machine gun crimes during that time period of the 50's and 60's?
Ok, I'll give you the roaring 20's with Al Capone, but there were also there circumstances going on then too.
So, it wasn't that long ago, that we have MUCH easier access to fire arms, even fully automatic ones, yet, we didn't have the problems with mass shootings we have now, in schools, etc.
And even with these.... gun violence overall in the US has been declining over the past years. [washingtonpost.com].
So, over all, things have gotten better, and yet...we're wanting to have law abiding Americans, the VAST majority of gun owners in the US, millions of them...give up their rights, to cater to the lowest denominator of a few whack-o's...right?
And we're wanting to do this and make things harder on the vast majority legal law abiding citizens, even though so many of the laws already on the books are NOT being enforced...?
Hmm....I just don't buy that argument. We do not need to start treating the law abiding more and criminals and deprive them of their rights and property, and the privilege of protecting themselves and their homes.
I won't even get into reasons pertaining to the founding fathers wanting us armed, against tyranny of government that could happen.
Re: (Score:3)
> in High School in the late 70's early 80's, I remember tons of folks parking in the student parking lot with gun racks in their truck, with loaded rifles in them....no problem.
In the same era, my school even had marksmanship classes for PE credit. We all got in a bus and they drove us to the police firing range and handed us .22 rifles.
Re:Tubes, or... (Score:5, Informative)
Even California has relatively weak controls compared to most counties and compared to what people are asking for.
Noooooooooooope.
California has some of the most restrictive and nonsensical rules regarding guns, and loooooooves denying or just ignoring valid permit applications for no reason.
Unless you're a certain congress woman, then you get to pack heat while telling everyone else they can't.
Re:Tubes, or... (Score:5, Informative)
In most countries you can't even get a permit unless you have a really, really good reason. Compared to most developed countries even California is relatively permissive, just not relative to the rest of the US.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The sad fact is that most people who want to own a gun by definition have mental health issues.
Nope. The fact is people who are afraid of guns have an irrational phobia. And that is a mental issue.
Re:Tubes, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad fact is that most people who want to own a gun by definition have mental health issues.
Nope. The fact is people who are afraid of guns have an irrational phobia. And that is a mental issue.
Nope. The fact is you're both full of it.
Neither ownership of a gun, nor a fear of guns, is a sign of mental illness.
It's possible to debate a topic without claiming the other side only holds their position due to a mental defect.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"No Mustard" (Score:3)
Police were seen laying down evidence markers near the seating area of the cafe.
I've seen epic McDonald's fights over the lack of bacon on an Egg McMuffin. No telling what can happen if they put mustard on a burger when you said, "No Mustard"
Re: (Score:3)
please don't be an AR
please don't be an AR....
OH wait, I don't think they allow regular ARs in CA anymore, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder who pissed her off?
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently a woman shooter.
I wonder who pissed her off?
From what I have read elsewhere, she shot her boyfriend, and then herself. Other injuries may be due to panic and lack of information dissemination.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll buy the possibility of someone angry at YouTube over recent policy who decided to go shoot up the place, but they'd have to get past security to even get at people. It's far more likely that it's a disgruntled employee.
Re:Then this happens... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ala Snack Bar (Score:2)
Was she selling snacks by any chance?
Re:Then this happens... (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently a woman in some sort of black head covering
We should not jump to conclusions here, but given that description it is likely that she was a Catholic Nun.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not even (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck you. That's never a justification for violence. Ever.
Asshole.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just stupidity all around. People shouldn't shoot up offices and schools, and corporations should refrain from antagonizing people.
Re: (Score:2)
California also has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Yeah, more laws should do the trick.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't California ban active shooters in the state?
Nope.
According to Diane Feinstein [slashdot.org]:
We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it's legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.
Oops - mangled the link (Score:2)
Link above was mangled, here's the real link:
Feinstein quotes [azquotes.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, it is ALREADY ILLEGAL to hunt humans. That is called "murder" and can result in the 2nd most severe punishment of any crime (only copyright violation gets harsher punishments).
But of course making it MORE illegal will surely work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess not. They should get on that. Right after they put Prop 65 warnings on coffee cups.
And Texas? (Score:2, Insightful)
In the US, people can freely cross borders between states. That's why Chicago has such terrible gun violence despite having strict(er) gun laws than neighboring states/cities.
Then why does Texas have so much less? Or New Hampshire?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Because of thoughts and prayers!
Re:And Texas? (Score:5, Informative)
So much less what exactly?
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] shows:
New Hampshire: Gun ownership 14.4%, gun murders per 100,000: 0.4
Illinois: Gun ownership 26.2%, gun murders per 100,000: 2.8
Texas: Gun ownership 35.7%%, gun murders per 100,000: 3.2 (or as I like to call it, Illinois and New Hampshire combined)
I'm not suggesting that gun ownership rates are the only factor, but you seem to be fact deficient, so I decided I would help you out :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the most informative infographics about mass shootings in America [washingtonpost.com]. But as this story unfolds, it's clear that those speaking about arming teachers is just a band-aid. We want children to be safe in schools, but workplaces are okay? By numbers, workplaces are a more dangerous place than schools both in the number of shootings and the number of people killed. Should we make illegal rules and contracts that stipulate against guns on private property? Do we pretend any of that makes sense as people
Re: And Texas? (Score:4, Interesting)
Lemme guess, that's not valid because
Because gathering up all the guns is specifically prohibited by our Constitution.
Also, just imagine what would happen if Congress did in fact pass a law banning the ownership of guns. I'd imagine a lot of hillbillies would not take to kindly to that and they'd be stacking up dead cops like cordwood. You think people wouldn't shoot a cop over them taking their guns? Are you sure you want to find out? Tell you what, you get to be the guy that knocks on the door. I'll just see how that turns out by reading the obituaries in the newspapers.
There's more guns in the USA than people. There's more armed citizens than there are soldiers and police officers combined. That's assuming the people in uniform would go along with the ban. They'd likely join the hillbillies or go run off and hide so they didn't end up dead.
There's an estimated 5 million members of the National Rifle Association and an estimated 2 million members of the US Armed Forces (active and reserves). That alone leaves the military outnumbered 2 to 1. But the Army has tanks! Yeah, that's going to work out well for everybody. Let's just start another civil war in the USA, because that last one only killed off 3% of the population.
I've heard how those gun confiscations turned out in Australia, Canada, even some they attempted in the USA in states like California and New York. They had maybe a 1/3rd compliance rate. They knew how many of these guns were sold, they tracked that much. Only 1/3rd were turned in willingly. Where's the rest of them? How are you planning on getting those? Again, I'll read up on how that turns out in the obituaries.
They can't ban the guns because nobody knows where they all are. I don't even know where all of my guns are. I talked to my mom and brother and they don't know where all their guns are. It's not like they are lost, I have my guns in my house, my mom has her guns in her house, my brother keeps his guns somewhere in his shed. We just have so many we might forget where they all might be if someone came asking.
The government could go around and gather up 300 million guns and there would still be 60 million they didn't find. It's not like a gun is all that complex, people make them in garages just for fun. You think if the government made a pile of 360 million guns that they'd have them all? Nope, people would be making them faster than the government could find them. Go look up "ghost gun" and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, etc.
Outliers? Or are you just saying that Blue Cities have a problem?
Re:And Texas? (Score:4, Informative)
Can you show any correlation between gun laws and violent crime? I actually did a study on that for a statistics project at university, I found no correlation between gun laws and violent crime.
I'd like to see this correlation you claim.
Don't take my word for it though. I did do a statistical analysis but so did a lot of other people with much more experience in this than I have.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
That link is just one example I could find with a short Google search.
I'll hear people make claims about "gun deaths" correlating to gun ownership. I don't care if the person got murdered with a gun, a knife, or by being tossed out a window. If we want to see murder go down then it can't be done with gun laws. We might see "gun deaths" go down but that's like saying "pool drownings" go down by banning pools while total drownings stay the same because now people go swim in a lake instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We'll find out what cities Op had in mind when he cites his source. Maybe cities like Naperville and Oak Park?
Re: (Score:2)
Because their hoodlums go out of state to but weapons?
Sounds like they have a problem with Hoodlums.
Re: (Score:3)
Then the whiners will piss and moan about "guns from out of country," but our government has no jurisdiction there. Q.E.D.
Uhhh... we have jurisdiction over our border. Mexican guns aren't much cause for concern as long as they stay in Mexico.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. If that were true the level of gun violence in those neighboring areas would be much higher.
Re: (Score:2)
His statement does seem to be an indictment of the citizens of Chicago.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, people can freely cross borders between states. That's why Chicago has such terrible gun violence despite having strict(er) gun laws than neighboring states/cities.
So, the criminals get their guns from the surrounding places where the gun laws are lax and everybody has and sells guns. They take these guns into Chicago and commit violent offenses with them, and Chicago's crime rate soars, even though Chicago has the tough gun laws. QUESTION: Why is the crime rate LOW in those adjacent territories where the gun laws are lax and all the guns are in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is the crime rate LOW in those adjacent territories where the gun laws are lax and all the guns are in the first place?
Typically, isolated cities like this start out as places where the crime rate (and violent crime rate) soars, and they try to curb it by enacting gun laws. In other words: everyone has the same gun laws; then the city has high crime; then the city enacts gun laws; the crime doesn't go away.
People come along and say, "Hey, look! The places without gun laws have low crime, and the strong gun law places have high crime!" Sometimes they leave it dangling; frequently they try to assert something about dis
Cat Videos (Score:4, Funny)
Imagine your job is to review cat videos.
All day, every day.
Cats sleeping, cats jumping, cats getting scared, cats attacking, cats fighting, cats hunting birds, etc.
Now, wouldn't that make you crazy and want to shoot the place up?
Re:Cat Videos (Score:4, Funny)
Imagine your job is to review cat videos.
All day, every day.
. . . which leads to an amusing job interview:
"So . . . in your last job, you looked at pussy all day . . . ?"
Re: (Score:2)
GOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooaaaaaaaaaalllll!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, they wouldn't be completely wrong.
You need to reevaluate your life.
Re:19 years to the month of Columbine (Score:5, Interesting)
That does not seem to be true. The specifics depend on your definition of "gun", but if assuming you mean handgun, then google suggests you can definitely own that in Australia. Not in the US "I need this... because.. I just do, ok, gief all the guns!" fashion, but as an active member of a club you can apply for a permit. If "gun" includes rifles and shotguns, then you can own those in England too, as far as I can tell.
From where I sit, regulation seems to be the crucial factor, with bans applying only to categories of firearms. Along with regulation you seem to get a culture where guns are treated with proper respect as opposed to as throwaway items anyone can possess without question or training and toss loaded into their nightstand drawers.
I don't believe there's a single solution that will work for every nation, there are so many factors at play, but it seems fairly self-evident that a good start is to do something different from what the US has been doing.
Re: 19 years to the month of Columbine (Score:3)
Easy answer: It requires a Constitutional Amendment.
Simply get Congress to sign off on it ( which will get them all voted out of office ) then get 75% of all States to do the same ( which will also get them voted out ) and you can make it happen.
Have fun.