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."
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!
corporations should refrain from antagonizing people.
Fuck you. That's never a justification for violence. Ever.
Asshole.
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
We all know gun control isn't the answer. Thoughts and prayers are!
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.
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.
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.
So much less what exactly?
Wikipedia 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 :)
You're 100% wrong. Gun violence is usually HIGHER in areas with high gun ownership rates.
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
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.........
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.
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.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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.
I stole this Sig
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.