Slashdot Mirror
Update: Possible Active Shooter Reported at YouTube HQ (theverge.com)
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."
Chicago has such terrible gun violence because it is essentially an incubator for black on black violence. I'm not someone that thinks more and more guns are the answer to everything but London just managed to surpass New York in murders and they happen almost entirely with blades or blunt weapons.
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....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
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.
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) 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..
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
One of the most informative infographics about mass shootings in America. 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 with an intent to kill rarely obey the laws or rules to carry a gun and more guns almost always leads to more gun accidents and death without at least a minimal higher standard on gun ownership and possession?
I definitely wouldn't pretend I have the exact answers. To some extent, I think we over-sensationalize gun violence because as horrible as it is, we're not approaching it from the mindset of it being an aberration from an otherwise utopia. While there's certain statistics that can be argued about other countries to justify strict gun laws, it would seem like a large part of the problem is the culture that thinks guns are a solution to a lot of problems they simply aren't.
Perhaps that's the real point of the sensationalism? Except we don't have that discussion. We don't go to movies, watch a "hero" shooting (and presumably killing) hundreds of people and then at the end have a queasy feeling in our stomach because as much as it's a fantasy, we enjoy too much that fantasy. As a gamer who realizes that games aren't real life, I have that feeling when I start seeing gorier games. It's part of the reason why I simply won't play a large number of more horror-focused games. You see, the point isn't really that you can't enjoy playing them or tell the difference between them and life. It's that at some level, realizing what you are playing so invoke you a certain feeling of disgust about it. I simply don't see that in the eyes of a lot of people who are pro guns.
Perhaps it's fear that clouds their judgement. Maybe I'm just not seeing that revulsion because I haven't looked hard enough for it. What I do know is that we need more the discussion about why we celebrate guns so much while ignoring the real harm they can and do cause.
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.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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.