YouTube Shooter 'Nasim Aghdam' Reportedly Had Website With Manifesto That Targeted YouTube For Censorship, Demonetization (abc7news.com) 722
The woman who entered the YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California, this morning and started shooting has been identified as Nasim Aghdam. According to ABC7 News, "the YouTube shooter was a user of the platform" and had "a website with an alleged manifesto that targeted YouTube for censorship and demonetization of her video content. According to her website, a possible motivation for the shooting could have been tied to her many YouTube accounts, which she says have seen a decline in viewership over the past few months."
Here is a timeline of events from our original post: 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 20:30GMT: 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."
Good thing she had access to a gun... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise she wouldn't have been able to take out the shooter.
What? hey........ oh shit! You just won the internet for the whole freakin month!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's also a good thing that California has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation in order to prevent this kind of thing from happening.
Re:Good thing she had access to a gun... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, if you consider the situation, it could have been much worse. From the body count alone, one can infer that this person was not using a semi-automatic rifle with high-muzzle velocity fragmentary rounds. With an AR-15 she may have killed a dozen people before killing herself.
With a little practice and a bolt action deer rifle it could have been much worse. Medium-caliber cartridges like the .223 / 5.56mm used in an AR-15 are chosen by the military for their tendency to wound, rather than always killing, because wounding one soldier tends to take two or three out of the fight as his buddies stop fighting to focus on saving him. Hunting rifles are designed to kill as quickly as possible, both to avoid game being able to run away and to ensure a quick, humane kill.
If you want to kill a lot of people with a gun, find a bunch of them in an open area with no easy way to cover and shoot them with a high-powered rifle from an elevated perch. Bolt action will work fine as long as the action is smooth and you've practiced a little.
If you want to kill a *lot* of people, though, you don't use a gun. Bombs and incendiaries are much more effective.
In this case, though, and in the majority of rampage shooting events, she used a handgun because it was small and easy to carry.
Also, all of the above-mentioned firearms are readily available in California. Magazine sizes are restricted for all types of firearms, some cosmetic features are restricted on ARs, and some effort has been made to make it difficult to swap rifle magazines quickly.
Re:Good thing she had access to a gun... (Score:4, Interesting)
Medium-caliber cartridges like the .223 / 5.56mm used in an AR-15 are chosen by the military for their tendency to wound, rather than always killing, because wounding one soldier tends to take two or three out of the fight as his buddies stop fighting to focus on saving him.
This is outdated bullshit from WWII and has nothing to do with why we use the .223
Dude stop mashing together half ideas you heard from military wannabees at your gun club.
It's what I got from the training manuals I taught out of when I was a combat arms instructor in the US Air Force.
What's your source?
Sounds a little mentally unstable (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if her channels have been deleted or if people have made copies of her videos, but one thing that may be fascinating about this particular case is that the suspect has likely created an extensive number of videos over the past several years that will probably give investigators a pretty accurate view into her thought process. Hopefully that will prove helpful in identifying other individuals who appear to be expressing at risk behavior and that we'll be able to figure out what can be done to treat whatever it is that's wrong with them.
Re:Sounds a little mentally unstable (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not going to try to lump this person into any particular group or ideology,
I will.. From watching 30 seconds of her video she was clearly in the batshit crazy group.
Re:Sounds a little mentally unstable (Score:5, Funny)
she was clearly in the batshit crazy group.
You mean that she was "neurodivergent". Your neurotypicalness reeks of white privilege.
Re: Sounds a little mentally unstable (Score:2)
I will.. From watching 30 seconds of her video she was clearly in the batshit crazy group.
Obviously. It says right in TFA that she's a vegan. You don't even need to watch her videos; it goes without saying that she's batshit crazy.
Re:Sounds a little mentally unstable (Score:5, Informative)
She has a bunch of videos [dailymotion.com] up on Daily Motion they haven't pulled yet. Self centered militant vegan whack job.
Re: (Score:3)
You have some of the most detestable opinions I have ever read on this site. No matter the issue, you always seem to take the worst side of it. I pity the people IRL who elect to put up with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Total darkness wouldn't fix that. The bad corner of the hot/crazy graph. Not even with a stolen dick.
Re: (Score:2)
Animal rights activists don't seem to lead happy, well-adjusted lives, do they? Most other "activists" seem to have similar life issues, but not quite as bad as the animal rights crowd.
Re: (Score:3)
Making fun of her just feeds into the sense of righteousness. If she's genuinely not happy, it should be obvious. Try being kind and asking her how her obsession is working out. It's not helping her, and it's not helping animals. It's just making her unhappy for no benefit at all. So why keep it up? Really, why?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>she doesn't come off as a mentally stable individual
why? Can you even describe your perception?
>Hopefully that will prove helpful in identifying other individuals who appear to be expressing at risk behavior and that we'll be able to figure out what can be done to treat whatever it is that's wrong with them.
Yeah hopefully this will provide some traction for freedoms to be curtailed further so we can force weird people into "treatment" just in case they decide to cash in their social contract in a way
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps this can help you: https://www.mentalhealth.gov/g... [mentalhealth.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
No, really. That web site could really help you improve your life. You don’t seem to be very happy with the way it's going. Let them try to help you out.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not going to try to lump this person into any particular group or ideology, .
Why not?
If this was Fred, the white nationalist, we'd have no hand wringing and puzzling over motive or head scratching at all ...
Re:Sounds a little mentally unstable (Score:5, Insightful)
The data regarding ongoing censorship against fairly tame conservative youtubers is pretty common out there, twitter, facebook and especially youtube are outright fucking with peoples income.
Some people, tired of hypocrisy document this stuff, provide data which is contrary to far left groupthink, bam, twitter banned or youtube demonetized.
Case in point CountDankula, despite only one video being a problem, now his entire channel has been demonetized. Dozens of videos which brought in, income for this person, disabled, money shut off, done. That's insane, that's scary.
I don't condone this womans choice of protest, having seen a video of her, she's *clearly* not playing with a full deck, but youtube ought to maybe consider how and what they police a little more carefully. The definition of 'hate speech' is varying insanely wildly on the internet in the past few years.
Being accused of being racist, sexist and homophobic (or any other phobic) is extremely common. I've seen Jonathon Pie accused of being a nazi now, Jonathon Pie for goodness sakes.
There's certainly conspiracy theorist nutters out there, I very much suspect she is a nutter, that however doesn't mean that general conservative speech or even centrist speech simply debating the far left (!!!) isn't being demeed "nazi talk" by bloody lunatics lately and censored.
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube didn't just censor his pug video, they just randomly de monetized his entire collection.
Why? Why do that? And he's by far, hardly the only one, this has been ongoing for a long time.
Re:Sounds a little mentally unstable (Score:4, Interesting)
Boom. [youtube.com] Mind blown. Brain matter all over the ceiling. Skull shrapnel everywhere.
Go on, dodge and weave. Spin it somehow that this one doesn't count. I'm sure you've got it in you.
Gun toting Vegans! (Score:3)
Wouldn't you like to be a fly on the skull, listening to the inner discourse of a Vegan Animal Rights Activist buying a gun? Talk about incoherence.
Re: (Score:2)
For self-defense against vengeance-seeking genetically-modified super-plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Her website is quite interesting (Score:4, Informative)
Look through her website. It's linked in the OP. It's worth a few minutes of your time if you're interested in this case, before it gets nuked. Many youtube videos linked through it already are.
She's some kind of a hardcore vegan activist of Iranian origin. Has separate youtube channels for Turkish, Iranian and English audiences. Claims persecution from everyone from youtube to "anti-vegan animal business supporting criminals trying to harm me/kill me" (with picture of what look to be a nail stuck in a car's tyre, with tyre remaining inflated).
Huge message in the middle of the page on yellow background states the following:
BE AWARE! Dictatorship exists in all countries but with different tactics! They only care for .There is no equal growth opportunity on YOUTUBE or any other video sharing site,
personal short term profits & do anything to reach their goals even by fooling simple-minded people,
hiding the truth, manipulating science & everything, putting public mental & physical health at risk,
abusing non-human animals, polluting environment, destroying family values, promoting materialism &
sexual degeneration in the name of freedom,..... & turning people into programmed robots!
"Make the lie big, Make it simple, Keep saying it, And eventually they will believe it" Adolf
Hitler... There is no free speech in real world & you will be suppressed for telling the truth that is not
supported by the system. Videos of targeted users are filtered & merely relegated, so that people can
hardly see their videos!
your channel will grow if they want to!!!!!
Not what I would call the most stable individual in the world. Shame, she's actually quite a good looking woman, with no religious head covering at all in the pictures that are still up. Linking her to islamism based on just the headscarf is likely not an accurate description. Hardcore vegans on the other hand are well known for violently attacking anyone who opposes their views. Just ask the folks working in laboratories that conduct animal testing.
Re: (Score:2)
Good looking woman? You only saw stills. Watch a video, you'd flee.
24 beers, maybe more. 'Useless to her' levels of drunk.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you seen that website yet? It's not something that most stable of a person would put together. You have everything from complaints about youtube written in a very angry tone, to conspiracy theories about her being attacked in real life because she has a nail stuck in her tyre, to anti-homosexual propaganda video and ravings about "destruction of family values".
She also comes off like she genuinely believes that she is targeted on a personal level by many people judging by that material.
I didn't disagre
Re:Her website is quite interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Her site is basically a collection of Reddit conspiracy theories. It's all personal, all a giant conspiracy against you and your ilk.
It's a common narrative even on Slashdot. It seems like the internet breeds this kind of warped, paranoid world view.
Re: (Score:2)
The day of idiots on slashdot. First I get accused of being an american, now I get accused of being a british. All because said couple of idiots cannot address the arguments I present, so all they can do is just fling shit in hope that of it will stick, down to thinking they can nail my nationality or ethnicity, and somehow use it against me as a weapon.
Stop. Get some help, before you end up like that woman did.
Re:Her website is quite interesting (Score:4, Funny)
The day of idiots on slashdot. First I get accused of being an american, now I get accused of being a british.
Stop. Get some help, before you end up like that woman did.
Ghana stop guessing. Jamaican me crazy!
Re: (Score:2)
The eyes, the crazy is in the eyes. In extreme cases, like this bitch, it comes right through the camera.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I disagree with the assertion that all vegans are violent. That is just silly.
But for this part, the OP described exactly what I was thinking when I initially saw that picture with her take on it.
"anti-vegan animal business supporting criminals trying to harm me/kill me" (with picture of what look to be a nail stuck in a car's tyre, with tyre remaining inflated).
Even if someone had wanted to kill her, there are far more effective ways to do it than driving a nail or a screw into one of her tires. And her accusation is so overly broad, it's clear to me that she has no real-life concrete enemies to point to that could have done this to her tire.
And to me at least
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't actually say that I disagree with her, because I don't disagree with her on key points of youtube's policy as it functions.
But there are ways to present that view that are reasonable, and then there's the way in which she presented it.
lovers triangle lol (Score:2)
CNN is still reporting it was the result of a lovers triangle lol
Her website (Score:4, Funny)
Looks like what I'd expect if the Timecube author took up veganism.
Re: (Score:3)
Her website ... Looks like what I'd expect if the Timecube author took up veganism.
Well, a lot of vegan recipes call for cubed tofu, tomatoes, and squash. It's all in the cubes.
Leftists suck at this (Score:5, Interesting)
Four hits, no kills, only herself. She's bad at this. Remember the Bernie supporter who opened fire on a baseball field full of Republicans? 50 shots fired, 5 hits, no kills.
Remember when some terrorists killed everyone at the Draw Muhammad contest in Garland, Texas? [archive.is] That's OK, the Texans don't remember that either. The terrorists were shot and killed outside the event. They were wearing body armor, too. They were killed by head shots.
Re:Leftists suck at this (Score:4, Funny)
I like my shooters like my crooked politicians: Amateurish and too inapt to pull it off successfully.
For once a *female* sexually frustrated nutcase. (Score:4, Interesting)
Her website screems "underf*cked & emotionally neglected avergage frustrated chump with a gun" only that this time the chump is a woman. Good to know that diversity is moving in on that territory aswell.
I hope no victim dies from the attack, AFAICT one victim still is critical.
TOS violations? (Score:3)
Technically shooting Youtube employees isn't a violation of their Terms of Service.
Must've been something she had in the videos..
Re: Seems like a rational response honestly (Score:2)
I'm not a fan of the companies practices but I'm not about to go kill people who work there. That's just batshit insane.
Re: Seems like a rational response honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a fan of the companies practices but I'm not about to go kill people who work there. That's just batshit insane.
She pretty much fit the definition of batshit insane. A vegan and animal rights activist who had no trouble shooting people - who last time I checked, are also animals.
Re: (Score:2)
She pretty much fit the definition of batshit insane. A vegan and animal rights activist who had no trouble shooting people - who last time I checked, are also animals.
Nothing new there. Orwell wrote about it years ago.
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL,
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Animal Rights: A Dangerous Aspect of Our New Secular Religion [pjmedia.com]
‘Who are you to judge?’ [washingtontimes.com]
. . . Then in the 1990s, something started to change dramatically in how her students responded to the sobering tale. Rather than being horrified by it, some claimed they were bored by it, while others thought the ending was “neat.”
When Ms. Haugaard pressed them for more of their thoughts, she was appalled to discover that not one student in the class was willing to say the practice of human sacrifice was morally wrong! She describes one interaction with a student, whom she calls Beth:
“‘Are you asking me if I believe in human sacrifice?’ Beth responded thoughtfully, as though seriously considering all aspects of the question. ‘Well, yes,’ I managed to say. ‘Do you think that the author approved or disapproved of this ritual?’
“I was stunned: This was the [young] woman who wrote so passionately of saving the whales, of concern for the rain forests, of her rescue and tender care of a stray dog. ‘I really don’t know,’ said Beth; ‘If it was a religion of long standing, [who are we to judge]?’”
How a Generation Lost Its Common Culture [mindingthecampus.org]
Tomorrow's menus will include a fine selection of steamed frogs, lightly killed by the most gradual temperature increases.
Re: (Score:2)
A vegan and animal rights activist who had no trouble shooting people - who last time I checked, are also animals.
Well, anecdotal evidence, I know, but many vegan, animal activists I met think that animals are better than humans (there's no criminality among animals!!1!) and despise humans who do not care animals like they do.
Re: (Score:3)
The main reason why there is no criminality among animals is that there are no laws among them either. No laws, no criminals. Without a law against shooting you and taking your stuff, I shoot you and take your stuff without becoming a criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
who last time I checked, are also animals.
You have the right ... TO DIIIIIIIEEEE!! HAHAHHAHAA
Re: Seems like a rational response honestly (Score:2)
Animals are her family? WTF?
I know there's a stereotype out there about Muslim men fornicating with barnyard animals, but I don't think you should take it THAT literally ...
Re: (Score:3)
Well, we belong to the kingdom Animalia, the phylum Chordata, the Mammalia class and Primates order, the Hominidae family, Genus homo and Species Homo Sapiens.
Except for the last one there are other animals we share this trait with. And except for the latter two, there are currently others who share the same level on the classification chart.
What makes a human human? What makes a human not an animal? What's special about us?
Re: Seems like a rational response honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a fan of the companies practices but I'm not about to go kill people who work there. That's just batshit insane.
True, but maybe you and she are in different live situations.
I mean.... you're not a small channel owner whose livelihood depends on money from Youtube, who suddenly experience an unexplained loss of views and revenue due to Youtube's arbitrary and capricious algorithms.
Perhaps she already had some sort of paranoid personality issues, and when she realized, she wasn't going to have a way of making ends meet, she was driven to insane and self-destructive behaviors, including the shooting.
Re: Seems like a rational response honestly (Score:2, Insightful)
She's not entitled to a livelihood from Youtube.
Re:Seems like a rational response honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
What other recourse do we have against the corporate/government AI/mass surveillance/media leviathan?
A cultural and social change? One that doesn't want a quick and violent fix to complex issues?
most of the voters are brain-deleted drones with zero self interest
No, I think you'll find that self-interest is on a massive uptick
The people in that office were not innocent
Let's say that for the moment I'll go along with your argument and assume you mean 'guilty of something' ...
They deserved it
... and then we reach this.
No.
No they did not.
I sincerely hope that I've just fed a troll, but silence is assent, and on the off chance that you actually believe what you posted - I sincerely hope that you get better because if this is what you believe, then I can only offer my sympathy and regret.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
basic human right like free speech
You've introduced that all on your own. I was countering the GPs rhetorical statement that violence/shootings was the only response to corporatism. They were arguing for revolution, I was making a case for evolution. I am arguing that looking for quick fixes, especially violent 'fixes' are unlikely to work on problems that have taken a long time to reach the point they have.
But to your point;
culture of censorship (youtube, twitter, facebook, any social media)
All of these are private organisations, not governments. Usually, censorship and free-speech arguments revolve around
Re: Seems like a rational response honestly (Score:5, Informative)
The people in that office were not innocent. They were working for an evil entity. They deserved it, the families they built with that profit from evil deserve their loss.
Yeah, you tell them! Those Charlie Hebdo shooters had the right idea, amirite?
Paging Dr. Orwell (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no such thing as "punching down". There's just satire, which is what they published, and actual violence, which is what their attackers did when they murdered them in cold blood.
Stop using newspeak to confuse two entirely different things. It's ideologically motivated manipulation to justify why some people do not deserve sympathy or empathy.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a web site with answers for you: https://www.mentalhealth.gov/g... [mentalhealth.gov]
Re: Seems like a rational response honestly (Score:3)
Civil war between whom? Seriously. That's just stupid. To have a civil war you need two clearly defined sides. The United States is not even close to that kind of situation.
So how about revolution then? Well it sounds nice - very heroic, like Lenin and Castro and Ho Chi Minh. But what ideology will be behind this revolution? Marxism-Leninism? Yeah, good luck with that, it's 60+ years out of date and was never popular here anyways. Strict Constitutionalism? That wouldn't be much of a revolution, now wou
Re: (Score:2)
To have a civil war you need two clearly defined sides. The United States is not even close to that kind of situation.
The incarceration rate in the US has been compared to states that are in the midst of civil war. Nothing else comes close. Given the inequity in sentencing based on race and you have a situation where a 'side' is being defined by default. Throw in a media that's all-but unregulated and loves to fan the flames and you have the ingredients for a fairly ugly division on class and racial lines. It won't be the 'clean' civil war of competing ideologies; it will be the 'dirty' kind of unrest and spontaneous outbr
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The people in that office were not innocent. They were working for an evil entity. They deserved it, the families they built with that profit from evil deserve their loss.
I work at Google. I have friends who work at Youtube. On behalf of all of us and all of them: *Fuck you*.
I personally am proud to work for a company that is a major foundation of the open internet, a company that funnels its profits into things like scanning books and making them publicly available or developing self-driving cars without t
Re: Seems like a rational response honestly (Score:2)
Awwwww... someone offended Billy at Shareblue. I guess it must really suck when even the people to whom you show the most irrational favoritism, consider you a villain fit to be wiped from the face of the Earth.
Remember when you Progressive tools told us classical small-L liberals to pack up our culture of tolerance and go get fucked? Well yeah, brohan, you stooges just discovered that there are *other* violently intolerant assmunches out there. Have fun!
Re: (Score:2)
Correct is not the accurate answer. OTOH...
I seem to remember a study I ran across awhile ago that claimed that social norms were only maintained by those oppressed by their violation occasionally throwing personal costs to the wind and acting violently to revenge themselves on those violating them. In that case I'd say her mistake was poor targeting, but she probably did the best she could.
OTOH, I suspect her targeting was poor enough that it will have no effect.
Re:The liberals will not say much at all about her (Score:4, Informative)
There's no indication that she was a muslim, other than her Iranian origin. That's like assuming a East Asian gangster is a Buddhist kung-fu master without any other supporting fact.
Her website and youtube videos do paint her as a hardcore vegan, liberal, and an animal rights activist. Nothing about Allah or Koran or anything religious. She was probably an atheist.
And yes, unsurprisingly there's little to no mention of her and this Youtube shooting on Democratic Underground. They'd be screaming to high heaven if the shooter was named Billy Joe Bob.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The liberals will not say much at all about her (Score:5, Insightful)
Signs are there that she is a Muslim. But I also see nothing there pointing to her having some sort of "jihadist" ideology. Her rant goes off against everyone who disagrees with her ideology, which appears to be a mix of left and right.
Things she rants about from the left:
* Veganism
* Corporations
* Pollution
Things she rants about from the right:
* Family values
* Sexual degeneracy
Things she rants about that could be from either:
* Materialism (although you probably see complaints more often from the left)
* Censorship (although you probably see complaints more often from the right)
Doesn't fit neatly into any box except "angry and feels the world is against her"
Umm...? (Score:3)
The liberals will not say much at all about her but if it had been done by a white man, they would be raving. Her being a female and a muslim will not play well with the liberal narrative.
I was under the impression that the "liberal narrative" was that guns should be heavily regulated. To that end, I'm certain they are still going to be saying that regardless of who the shooter is. Seriously, what is this liberal narrative? Only white males misuse guns? I would love to get the answer to this question.
Glad she's not around to waste taxpayer money on a trial that would surely in California not earn her the stiffest possible penalty as it would here in Texas.
Well, we all thank you for your bravery in these trying times, Anonymous Coward. ;)
Re:The liberals will not say much at all about her (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast, vast majority of perpetrators of gun violence in this country are not Persian or women or vegan.
Did you, by any chance, came out after the Vegas shooting to say that the vast, vast majority of perpetrators of gun violence in this country are not wealthy white males? Of course you didn't.
Spin it any way you want, you're a phony.
Re:The liberals will not say much at all about her (Score:5, Insightful)
Why did you change it from "gun violence" to "mass shootings"?
To fit your narrative? Because the vast majority of gun violence is not committed by white men.
Re: The liberals will not say much at all about he (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Any reasonable and logical person can look at deaths-per-gun-owned and see that they're not the same in every country; they're not even close enough
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What you say is certainly true, but you need to follow it to its logical conclusion to see why it's not an argument for what you propose. Gun violence is more prevalent in Chicago than it is in the neighboring cities (where the guns are coming fro
Re:The liberals will not say much at all about her (Score:5, Insightful)
However, it is arguably committed by people to whom guns are easily available. Do you disagree?
Not necessarily. I'm surrounded by guns. Gun shops, gun ranges, neighbors with guns. Literally within earshot of a rifle range. I can walk outside with a small rifle, kill a rabbit in my garden and wave at a neighbor playing with his kids while I carry it to and fro. Guns, guns, guns. And no one is getting shot.
Twenty minutes south of me you're in a major metropolitan area where mostly blacks and Latinos shoot each other up routinely. Another body every other day or so.
I don't know how they get their guns but it's probably not much more difficult for them than it is for me. We'll call it a wash; same ease of acquiring guns. In truth we have a LOT more guns — and vastly better guns — than they do. But for the sake of argument we'll say it's the same.
So what is the difference between here and there? It certainly isn't the ease with which someone gets a gun, as you argue. It isn't wealth either. I'm not wealthy. I'm not trailer trash but I can find those people too because they're not far away; poor as dirt and also not shooting each other with anything like enough frequency to matter.
You don't want to deal with that question, do you? You want the cop out answer and the ban hammer, because unless your will is being forced onto others you're not satisfied. You have that in common with the angry inch that shot up YouTube HQ today.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The liberals will not say much at all about her (Score:4, Insightful)
Most likely, it's population density, and the higher total crime rates that go along with that, even if the per capita crime rates are actually lower. Our puny little human brains SUCK at those kind of statistics for the same reason we are scared of terrorists and mass shootings, despite them being the least likely forms of violent death.
On a per capita basis urban crime rates are higher than suburban and suburban are higher than rural.
http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/default-source/ncvrw2015/2015ncvrw_stats_urbanrural.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Violence is not a white privilege (Score:5, Informative)
And the mass majority of gun violence IN THE WORLD in the last decade is mainly by white Americans
No. That award goes to MIddle Easterns, with almost 500,000 deaths in Syria alone in the last 7 years.
Close second: Latinos. Just in Mexico there was 30,000 violent deaths last year, which is twice the number of gun victims in the USA. Of course a bunch of Mexican deaths are beheadings or people burnt alive, but still. Throw in about 25,000 in Venezuela, 4,000 in Honduras, etc. and it adds up quickly to a whole lot of non-White people killing non-White people.
As for Iraq, the total death toll since 2003 is between 125,000 and 250,000 (depending who you ask). And the US military is only around 55% white, so even if only the white soldiers were guilty that's still a lot less than what has happened in many non-White countries over the same period.
I know it's easier to blame white males, but facts are not on your side.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> No. That award goes to MIddle Eastern
> Close second: Latinos.
Friendly reminder that ALL Arabs and Hispanics are counted as "White" when counting crime stats. If you ever see stats you think are a little off, go read more into them, and you'll usually notice that a variety of races are rounded up and counted as "White".
is that so (Score:5, Funny)
Friendly reminder that ALL Arabs and Hispanics are counted as "White"
Please forward this information to diversity@google.com so they can expand their discriminatory practices to a larger segment of the population
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The liberals will not say much at all about her (Score:5, Insightful)
And the mass majority of gun violence IN THE WORLD in the last decade is mainly by white Americans
Not even close. Tally up the mass murders in African and the Middle East, where people local to those regions slaughter each other in enormous numbers, and you'll see that ... never mind, you know you were lying. Stop it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why did Mark David Chapman leave a full time job in Hawaii, fly all the way to New York and shoot John Lennon in the chest? You're trying to attribute rational thoughts to people who have become fundamentally irrational.
Re: The liberals will not say much at all about he (Score:3, Funny)
Idiot. They all breathe oxygen too. Perhaps we should ban air? Our are you too stupid to realize that air doesn't create stupidity or invite violence. Neither do guns.
Re: The liberals will not say much at all about he (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that a Persian vegan woman is the perpetrator in this instance does not change the fact that the vast, vast majority of perpetrators of gun violence in this country are not Persian or women or vegan.
Yeah! Just like the vast mojority of police shooting victims aren't black!
Wait ... what? NOW you want to talk about population statistics? And what about earlier?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not about population statistics, it's about the fact that blacks are on average massively more criminal than whites. Per head of population.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not just about stop and frisk, it's about violent crime, burglaries, etc. Why would the police be manipulating that data? We're not in a political climate for them to do so.
Re: The liberals will not say much at all about he (Score:5, Interesting)
Your behavior fits my understanding of Fascism and I find it deeply ironic that you probably self-identify as anti-fascist.
Re:The liberals will not say much at all about her (Score:4, Insightful)
What they all have in common is the easy availability of guns, which is fucking stupid. Guns should be banned.
This is easily proved false.
The US has always had lots of guns in civilian hands. It's one of the reasons Japan never invaded in WW2.
We've only started having these problems recently.
Something has changed, and it's not the availability of guns.
Even "the gun violence problem" has not grown worse, in fact dramatically the opposite.
Over the last 25 years gun-related homicides are down over 50%.
Over the same past 25 years, gun violence victimization is down over 75%.
What we do have that nobody on either side wants to discuss or even acknowledge is a public mental health crisis.
Most of the mass-shooters in the last ten years have been either under mental health treatment and medications or were until just prior to their crimes.
Homeless shelters are packed with the mentally ill that used to be institutionalized in order to keep both they and the public safe.
Laws already on the books that should have stopped at least some of the mass shootings were not enforced.
So what happens if you pass more laws and bans and they too are not enforced? Pass more laws?
You've decided that instead of restricting the freedom of mentally ill people you'd rather restrict the freedoms of everyone in order to avoid dealing with the mentally ill.
Plus, you know what happens if a gun ban is actually passed? Look what happened with drugs. The cartels will have a new cash commodity to sell Americans. Even better, these weapons won't have any restrictions. Think of street criminals with fully-automatic weapons, RPGs, grenades, landmines, 'Stinger'-type anti-aircraft rockets, and more.
Stop with the knee-jerk emotional bullshit. Use that lump of gristle 3 feet above your ass for something more than a hat rack.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
We've only started having these problems recently.
That might have something to do with:
From 1968 to 2012 the number of guns per capita doubled. [fas.org]
From 2008 to 2013 gun manufacturers doubled their output from 630K/yr to 1200K/yr [atf.gov]
Per capita. Means very little if Farmer Bob owns now 9 guns instead of the 3 he had 40 years ago while his 2 neighbors don't own any. Does he walk around with 9 guns on him at all time? Does he walk into a bar or the supermarket or to church with them? So even IF the number of guns in private ownership increased, and yet the overall firearms homicide rate dropped during that same period, I guess I should thank you for proving the point that it's quite unequivocally not the guns that are the causative ag
Re:The liberals will not say much at all about her (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, so from 1968 to 2012 the number of guns per capita doubled.
Yet the U.S. Homicide rate is currently about 20% lower [wordpress.com] than it was in 1968! You've proven increasing the number of guns in the U.S. doesn't result in more people being murdered. Congratulations.
P.S. Schools are much safer than in the 90s, shooting incidents involving students have been declining for decades. [northeastern.edu]
"Banning guns" requires guns, you incompetents (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no such thing as a gun ban.
There is only gun redistribution.
"Banning guns" means you give all the guns to the government to enforce the "gun ban." See how that works out, circa 1940 Jews.
Yup, an oddball, but... (Score:2, Informative)
your "analysis" is very shallow and not worthy of Slashdot.
First, most "gun violence" in the USA is actually suicides; these are people who want to kill themselves and simply select a gun because it seems fast and certain to work.
Second, much of the remaining "gun violence" in the USA is associated with criminal gang activity. The evidence we have from other countries with strict gun control is that criminal gangs do not go away, they simply kill with illegal guns or with other weapons.
Third, FBI statistics
Re:Yup, an oddball, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Third, FBI statistics for 2016 (Obama admin numbers, not Trumpian data) point out that more Americans were murdered with bare hands and fists and feet than with rifles
Attention readers: This is where the OP drastically moved the goalposts.
By dropping handguns (and possibly shotguns), this poster eliminated the vast majority of murders using a firearm.
It's also true that most mass-shooters are politically left-leaning
And this is where the poster started lying to you.
Mass shooters, like everyone else, tend to not fit entirely within one political box. You will be able to find a "right-wing" belief and a "left-wing" belief if you dig deep enough.
In the cases where political leanings are clear, they aren't shooting for leftist causes. Shooting up a gay nightclub because the people in it are gay is not a liberal position. Neither is shooting up a church because the members are black.
most are young men who are either [a] fatherless, [b] on mind-altering drugs, or [c] associated with Islam
This is also a lie, designed to incite you into a moral panic. Fact is they either had fathers or the fathers died of old age.
Many mass shooters had received mental health treatment that usually included drugs.....but he wants you to think they're using illicit drugs to increase the moral panic.
And the number of mass shootings in the last decade that was committed by Muslims, for jihadist causes, is 2. 3 if you want to throw in non-jihadist morality issues. Christians tied that just in the last year.
NONE of the nation's infamous mass shooters or assassins has been an NRA member
"Timothy McVeigh used a bomb so nah nah nah". Also, the NRA does not disclose the membership status of anyone. You actually do not know how many were NRA members.
a politically-active Republican, or a member of a well-known Christian church or Jewish synagogue.
Note all the qualifiers. They are critically important for the propaganda.
Someone who always voted Republican and expressed support for Republican causes does not count as a Republican unless he meets the vague definition of "politically-active". That allows you to exclude someone and claim purity based on the fact that he was not an elected official.
Same with "well-known". You get to throw out Christians by claiming their particular main-line-protestant church was not "well-known".
Tacking on Jews is a subtle call-back to the moral panic statements earlier in the post. Gotta ramp up the fear of them dark people, despite the fact that the rate of criminal acts by Muslims is lower than the population overall.
Heck, the vast majority of prisoners in the US are Christians. But you dismiss that with the "well-known" formulation. As in "Sure he went to a Baptist church every week, but he wasn't really a Baptist."
ALL proposals for "gun control" inconvenience or actively violate the Constitutional rights of the very people in the USA who are least likely to do one of these shootings.
Did you know that people used to not convert the "Well Regulated Militia" clause to "..." when discussing the 2nd Amendment? The absolute personal right to a firearm is actually due to a Supreme Court decision in the 2000s. For the two hundred years before that decision, it was accepted that the government had the right to regulate guns as a mechanism to regulate the militia.
NONE of the nation's infamous shooters were deterred from doing their actions because there was a law against it
Gun control is a damage mitigation strategy. The goal is to make it harder to commit a mass shooting, and to make you slower while you are committing your mass shooting. For example, limiting magazine size obviously won't stop a mass shooting. But it will make the shooter have to reload more often, s
Re: (Score:3)
Capitalism (...) is merely a material value system which is inherent in every society
You're confusing Capitalism with commerce and free markets. They aren't the same thing.
To understand the difference it's important to understand what the word "capital" means. People tend to think it means "money", but that's an oversimplification. "Capital" is synonymous actually synonymous with "means of production", which in turn means all those things (the means) a person can use to create (produce) rent and wealth, specifically enough rent and wealth so as to survive and thrive.
A person without access
Re:The liberals will not say much at all about her (Score:4, Interesting)
I was guessing, that since a handgun was used, and it wasn't a 50yr old white guy with a problem, or a messed up kid, that it just didn't fit their current narrative that helps push the anti-gun movement currently in swing.
It's almost like the news is saying "Oh, well, wrong type of mass shooting".
That fact that it hit YouTube really shocks me, that it has dropped off the radar so soon, I figured the location alone would have made it a front page news item for at least a few days....?
Where's David Hogg now? Why aren't they running him out there now to speak out once again on gun violence?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
if the killer is dead and anyone who really knew the truth of why she did what she did is dead, and whatever truth does exist is easily suppressed, that's a sort of blank check for using fear as a tool of influence.
Maybe you should start 23 youtube channels and an ugly website to share this with people so they too can fight back. And if it doesn't work, or if it doesn't quiet down the voices, I hear the NRA is offering big discounts on membership lately.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
My karma was manually wiped by site staff....
Sorry, no. Your karma was reduced by independent moderators who are offended by your apocryphal ravings and unsubstantiated paranoid blather.
Re: (Score:2)
> Might always makes right.
You DO realize that the fallacy of Iron Rule has been replaced with the Golden Rule, right?