Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Will Increase Security At All Offices Worldwide Following Shooting (theverge.com)
Following the shooting at YouTube's headquarters in San Bruno, California, yesterday, the company has announced plans to increase security at all of its offices worldwide. YouTube says this is intended to "make them more secure not only in the near term, but long-term." The Verge reports: The move reflects a growing concern in Silicon Valley that the effects of increasingly toxic and partisan online behavior may translate into violent offline actions. YouTube's statement was released through Google's Twitter account for communications; it's not clear whether Google itself will be implementing stronger security measures beyond YouTube. The shooter, 39-year-old Nasim Aghdam of San Diego, died yesterday of a self-inflicted gunshot wound after shooting and injuring three employees. From police reports, testimony from Aghdam's family members, and extensive traces of the woman's online behavior on YouTube and other platforms, we now know that Aghdam was disgruntled over the demonetizing of her videos and harm to her financial well-being.
Maybe just stop ripping off small content creators. It would probably work out cheaper than massively ramping up security.
Improving security is a good idea, however in the statement there is not a word about its content policies. Quite a few YouTube "celebreties" produce clickbait content and become "rich" and "famous".
In my opinion, YouTube shoud do more to encourage production of meaningful conent.
So they're adding more guns for their defense while deplatforming gun videos and advocating that everyone else give up their guns?
Because random shootings are a worldwide problem, right? Right? NUCLEAR FACEPALM.
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
There are content creators whose existence is toxic and damaging to Youtube brand. Obviously the shooter fell into that category. Advertisers do not appreciate advertising on videos that would potentially damage their brand. Youtube has every right to downgrade or remove stuff that is damaging to their business. If you don't like it go to another platform or go direct (via your own website - and get your own advertisers).
There is no need to do it everywhere in the world. These things only happen in backward places like the US. No other country thinks that the way to solve mass shootings is by increasing weapons use (arming school officials?). The US is increasingly looking like an African dictatorship. Forward thinking states like California should just declare independence. The US army is useless anyhow, they haven't won a war for decades.
When a large corporation fires/lays off hundreds to thousands of employees, it's a best practice to have armed police on business campuses for a period of time (months to even years).
Giving severance pay is another best practice..
So is giving advance notice that the change is coming (actually that's a legal requirement too).
So is having a meeting and giving some kind of explanation which shows respect for the employees and a reason why the change needs to take place and isn't arbitrary.
When youtube demonetizes content without warning, what they are doing is akin to a layoff.
Youtube could have reduced the likelihood of a shooting if they had:
Given 30, 60, or even 90 days notice that demonetization was coming.
Given "severance" pay based on the content creators historical income.
* To high income earners because they've done a lot for youtube in the past and they are less likely to get angry if youtube shows respect by giving severance.
* To low income earners because *it's very cheap* and generates a lot of good will.
* Distributed a video or -better- had a live conference where they explained why demonetization was necessary (advertisers refusing to pay for content, legal exposure to risk, etc.)
* Let everyone know that there would be armed uniformed police on campus starting immediately and continuing for for an unspecified period of time.
Instead, Youtub did it in a really roughshod way, with little explanation, no to almost no advance warning, and then expected, in a country full of gun owners and regular mass shootings, that nothing bad would happen.
I've been seeing youtube content creators posting upset videos for a while now.
I don't blame Youtube for demonetizing content. I just think they ignored best practices because they didn't see it as a layoff/firing of thousands of employees. And that is part of the reason their employees were shot.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It's not really a private business. It's owned by a publically floating company. Not being censored is kind of the big one for communications companies. Ford are forced to equip cars with good steering wheels. Enjoy the next shooting !!
... create your own content portal or find another one that feels you are a good fit ...
It's impossible to create your own content portal like YouTube, because creating an organization like this requires thousands of qualified specialists, billions of investment into infrastructure and promotion, governmental support on external markets, and so on and so forth.
So it does have certain responsibility towards its content creators, society in general, including international community.
Yeah, let's arm everyone with guns instead of changing the business model.
They should be forced to change their name. Hi welcome to Statist tube. With new and enhanced censorship and military security.
Buy guns people!! Lots of guns
Yep, adding more guns and security scanners on all the entrances to their buildings wi.e a corporate image of tolerance and harmony.
It won't give anybody the impression that they're a big bad corporation or make them even angrier.
No sig today...
We need more cat videos.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Toxic people are destroying it and ditching kitty memes for cybernetic saber tooth tigers.
It's not ok to sit around in the sun on a nice picnic table and pretend that everything is ok. A security presence is more reflective of reality to remind these bone heads of the world they are creating themselves.
Remember when the worst thing about Youtube was just the rampant music piracy?
BS! You only need that type of organization if you are supporting a large company. Many small video podcasters hosters host their own shows (some dual host with youtube). All a portal is a website on a hosted machine with video. Of course, you have to go out and get your own sponsors (TWiT.tv does this - it is growing). If you are small you don't need all that. If you go through another organization or individual's marketplace then you have to abide by their rules (and some of those could be arbitrary). Youtube just makes it easy to do because you can do it with nothing. You could probably do a cutdown version even in something like Wordpress. There are some much smaller than TWiT who do the same thing so that they have content control and can get their own advertisers.
I may have used the wrong words. It is not a government organization, it is not a public space ... it is private property... you do not have the right of free speech. There are a few non-discriminatory laws that you must abide by, but other than that YouTube has no obligation to be open to anyone saying anything.
My guess is the story about a lover's quarrel probably originated from the social engineering tactic she used to gain entry to the building.
And yet mysteriously the US is somewhat of a police state where average cops are heavily armed and prone to shooting people. Then there's the whole gigantic spying apparatus thing in bed with private business. Plus the world's biggest military. Oh and strangely inconsistent laws - walk down the street with gun showing - no worries. Walk down the street smoking weed - off to jail with you young man.
So yeah, enjoy your 'freedom', peasant. The rich guys will certainly enjoy theirs even if it means killing or throwing lots of you in jail.
Hypocrites.
The amount of karmic justice happening right now is just great.
I'm very sorry for the employees who really bear the least of the responibility for what Google has been doing lately... but from a commercial PoV, it' could only have happened to a handful of more deserving companies.
You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving, and that you have sufficient skill and knowledge to minimize the danger you pose to others when driving. This, US citizens are fine with.
But needing to show that you know the laws pertaining to gun ownership, that you understand gun safety both in usage and in storage before being allowed to own a gun, that they balk at. It boggles the mind.
It did. I mean, it took years before gun crime reached pre-ban levels again.
And in addition, nobody will surely ever think of shooting people when they get off work, right?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The shhoter was a whack job, but had YouTube not "demonetized" her content, she would have probably lived out her life in well deserved obscurity.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving
Yes because somehow car accidents can't be solved by more car accidents they same way gun violence can.
Yes, Youtube. Engage in toxic partisan behavior, and you become a target.
This is not to excuse any violence or attacks that occur. Just stating fact.
You need a license to drive a car.
Let me clear this up for you.
You need a license to drive one on the public roads. You don't need a license to own one, or buy one, or sell one, or make one. You don't need a license to make or sell kits to convert one from manual to automatic. You don't need a special license to own one which can carry more than four people. It's not illegal to own a "military style" or "tactical" car.
Democrats: " You don't need a gun because the police will protect you"
Democrats: "The police are murdering, racist pigs!"
You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving, and that you have sufficient skill and knowledge to minimize the danger you pose to others when driving.
You need a license to operate a vehicle on public roadways. It's a small but significant difference.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Given the fact they pissed off a huge amount of their content providers lately they should have realized that it was a large enough group that something like this was not unlikely. Now that it has occurred it's a certainty that others will attempt a copy cat attack. The security they had was laughable. I guess they didn't understand that a lot of people hate them.
...but don't post any videos about guns.
The world needs 2 or 3 viable YouTube competitors, so when YouTube abuses their position, content creators have recourse.
Governments should find a way to offer Microsoft and Amazon incentives to expand Mixer and Twitch to become true YouTube competitors.
We don't bully innocent Muslims because of terrorism. Gun owners are just as innocent of murder as Muslims are innocent of terrorism. Why do you want to scapegoat and bully the innocent?
An anti-gun company is going to add security, ie guns.
While demonetising the NRA which didn't shoot them up.
Because a vegan leftist nut job shot them up?
If you protest against violent people, you should expect an increase in violence, yes. And that requires you to have more security, and yes, more guns.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Youtube profits a great deal from triggering outrage. Is it karma that they suffer the boomerang of someone 'triggered' by their policies/choices?
I would have expected better video of the event, honestly.
-Styopa
You don't need a license to publish a newsletter. Because one of the first 2 Amendments in the Bill of Rights protects the freedom of speech and of the press. The other one protects firearms possession.
Quite so. Note that there is absolutely nothing stopping YOU from doing a YouTube competitor. Come up with a business plan, buy (or rent) hardware, hire programmers, go to town....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The move reflects a growing concern in Silicon Valley that the effects of increasingly toxic and partisan online behavior may translate into violent offline actions.
Er, her politics appear to align nicely with Google and YouTube's.
I don't care for all this; it happens now and then, not every day. Eventually we're going to have to go through metal detectors at every super market and library and other place we enter.
Why the show of fear? As soon as something happens once, people say, "Something must be done!" You've been a soft target for decades; you can be a soft target for a few decades longer; you're not going to have 15 more active shooters this year by staying a soft target.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
There basically is no place in the world where is as easy to legally get a gun as in the US
Fixed that for you. Due to smuggling, it's basically equally easy to get a gun in illegally in any industrialized nation. If it weren't, we should expect there to be literally zero gun crime in countries where it is difficult or impossible to legally obtain a gun, but there is no place in the world with zero gun crime. Funny how that works out.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Why limit it to black families? After all, it isn't just black families who do a shit job of raising their kids; and, in fact, many black families do a better job raising their kids than white families of the same class, despite what the stereotypes say. The issue is one of responsibility, not race, just as with guns, cars, knives, pressure cookers, or any other standard object.
When we're discussing responsibility, can we please not muddy the waters by making it about race, gender, or any other factor other than responsibility? In this country, when you are irresponsible with your rights, you have them restricted; when you are irresponsible with your privileges, you have them removed. At least, that what we're told, but all this making it about race, gender, sexual orientation, and what the fuck ever else, makes it near impossible to properly deal with certain classes of bad actors without massive public backlash.
And that's why it seems like things are getting worse.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Here, I'll do it for you, then I'll respond to that as well; it'll save us both a post.
Yes because somehow car accidents can't be solved by more cars they same way gun violence can.
The problem isn't gun violence, it's violence and you don't solve it by taking away guns, because there are plenty of other ways to enact violence and the violent types will use them. Similarly, you don't solve humans being inattentive, or irresponsible, or simply being human and making mistakes, by taking away cars, because there are plenty of other ways in which humans are inattentive, irresponsible, or simply human and make mistakes.
I haven't heard a single person advocate for more guns, that's just a strawman your kind put up because you know nobody will defend it, because you're the one who said it in the first place. Go argue with yourself elsewhere, you're the reason we can't have reasonable gun laws in the first place and, as long as you keep at it, we'll never have gun laws that actually work.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Advertiser do not care much for fish gut, but neither do they think it will damage them - fish are not considered cute by most. On the other hand animals which people see as "cute" could damage the brand if seen associated. So no it isn't about SJW or whatever , it is most probably in this case solely about not putting advertiser in a bind. That is why most of the content is getting sanitized and demonetized : it is too extreme for advertiser. And unfortunately for the right, the advertiser see the writing on the wall, and see many of such view as not advertising friendly. That is why something about feminism or similar left "wingish" issues (even a bit extreme) has faaaaar more chance to stay monetized than something right wing thema with the same fanatism.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Prove it, the statistics are available. And I mean to say this to both you and the poster to whom you are replying.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving, and that you have sufficient skill and knowledge to minimize the danger you pose to others when driving. This, US citizens are fine with.
I'm not fine with it, and I'm an American citizen.
Licenses to drive are, in my opinion, a waste of money. We have traffic cops to make sure people know how to drive, so I don't know how having a piece of paper in the driver's pocket is supposed to improve things. What if a person doesn't have a license? How would anyone even know unless they broke the law? I don't care if people have licenses, I care that they follow traffic laws.
I know people would ask, how we would know people know the traffic laws before they drive? Well, we don't now. There's nothing that prevents an unlicensed driver from driving. We hear about unlicensed drivers all the time. These tend to be people that lost their license because they had a history of drunken driving, which just proves that taking a class which tells people not to drink and drive has questionable effectiveness. Another problem of unlicensed drivers are illegal aliens that want to minimize interactions with the government as that might mean they get deported. That's just a symptom of a greater problem. We saw states that tried to issue licenses to illegal aliens but that's just states giving implicit permission for people to break federal law. If the state KNOWS this person is in the country illegally and allows them to drive then the state government is aiding foreign invaders, and that sounds real close to treason to me.
We don't need licenses to drive. People should have to learn on their own how to not kill themselves while driving. I took a driver safety course in high school. That wasn't because it was required by law but because it was required by my parents. Maybe instead of licenses to drive we need parents that act like adults.
Oh, and we need states that find illegal aliens to notify the federal government. If you want safer streets then pick up all the illegal aliens that drive while having minimal knowledge of the traffic laws, or even minimal knowledge of the language spoken here. I don't care if they have a license to drive, that just tells me that the state that issued them doesn't enforce the law. If they are willing to give licenses to criminals (because entering the country without permission is a crime) then I have to wonder just how well the state enforced traffic laws.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
You need a license to operate a vehicle on public roadways. It's a small but significant difference.
Just to add, it's considered a privilege to drive on the roads, as opposed to what is a natural right.
2 Wrongs don't make a right, neither does 2 1/2 fixes fix the problem.
Google/YouTube, are public targets. It does make sense for them to improve security. As nearly any crazy out there will blame the biggest name out there. Google/Facebook/US Government/Big (industry)... For all of life's woes no matter what they do.
That said, Google/YouTube seems to be rather blind on the problem with such algorithm and how it is affecting the lives of content creators. Being that a lot of the content creators see themselves as independent business folks, hits to their income from a computer glitch that isn't trying to be fixed, will make people angry. For some people this anger can turn into violence.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
On the other hand animals which people see as "cute" could damage the brand if seen associated. So no it isn't about SJW or whatever , it is most probably in this case solely about not putting advertiser in a bind.
Right, it is not like there would be say sporting goods suppliers as advertisers, or knife manufacturers, the NRA, Gun Sellers, sellers of meat processing items, etc, etc.
Quite so. Note that there is absolutely nothing stopping YOU from doing a YouTube competitor. Come up with a business plan, buy (or rent) hardware, hire programmers, go to town....
Will you loan me $3 Billion to fund it until it is cash flow positive?
This seems like a no brainier but, people make money and live off of YouTube, (I would also argue this could happen with any overly involved social media, i'm addicted/reliant to social media and you take that from me) They are learning if you mess with peoples lives (perceived or real) people react. And no all people react in the best or rational way. YouTube and Facebook are beginning the slow (self imposed) spiral down, it will be interesting to see how people deal with it.
She was never got further in than an open courtyard accessible to the public. They went with lover's quarrel because surely a female can't just go on a shooting rampage unless it's over a broken heart.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Pit maneuver, or just ramming are used to prevent accidents. Police use their cars to intentionally crash into fleeing vehicles to stop them. Usually they resort to this technique to avoid accidents that would involve innocents.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
So basically you're victim blaming YouTube.
You're using victim blaming wrong. Victim blaming is when the victim did nothing wrong but people still blame them. For example, saying wearing a skirt is the reason she was raped. YouTube took away this woman's income and her perceived free speech. YouTube is very much to blame for what happened. If a thief stole your wallet and you shot them, the thief is not the victim. Too bad she shot herself, her YouTube channel would have been very popular after the shooting and she would have got back her viewers and remoneitized her account.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/london-murder-rate-higher-new-york-city-first-time-surging-knife-gun-crime/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/01/south-london-stabbing-death-brings-capitals-tally-to-31-this-year
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/teenage-girls-killed-as-london-murder-rate-outstrips-new-york-for-first-time/news-story/e36a80d11985b3d72d0f9f00887f3c69
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5566689/London-murder-rate-overtakes-New-York-time-including-11-killings-just-16-days.html
All those and several more articles found on first page of search results. All these articles published in the last few days.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
...lock the barn door.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
And that's how you destroy an AC troll. Good show!
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
And the irony is that this was done by an SJW type and not a "gun nut".
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
No because she could have just as easily have ran over people in the parking lot with her car. Gun control will not stop violent people from finding a way to act out. It's treating a symptom and not the cause.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
So give in to a nut with a gun? Why not take away her her gun?
Did anyone even know she had a gun? Did she show criminal tendencies in the past? Or have a history of poor mental health? I'll admit to ignorance here but I saw nothing on how she got the gun. As far as I know nobody knows yet how she got the gun and therefore nobody can claim any kind of gun control would have been effective.
Gun control in Australia slashed gun crimes.
And banning bridges would prevent people from jumping from them. I see your argument but I think it's a very stupid one.
How about instead of focusing on guns and "gun crime" we look at ALL CRIME? I've seen the argument before on how banning guns would prevent people from shooting themselves in suicides. That did happen in every nation in which it was tried, but total suicides didn't go down, people just found different ways to kill themselves. The problem here was a bat guano crazy lady that wanted to inflict physical harm on people at YouTube. If we find out how she go the gun and put in place a law against it then we'll just see some other kind of violence take its place. I see in Europe it has become popular to run people over with vehicles and slash people with knives, a gun ban didn't stop that. I don't see people calling for bans on vehicles. We did see some crazy laws on the buying of knives in some nations, where now people have to show ID and sign a log to buy a pizza cutter.
Trump might be shit scared on the NRA, but the kids in the schools aren't.
I don't believe Trump is scared of the NRA, he spoke at NRA conventions before. Trump and NRA leadership don't agree on everything but they seem to get along just fine. Seems to me that the school kids are scared of the NRA. They'll talk about how the NRA will get them killed. Well the NRA runs the most popular child gun safety programs and few people even know about it. They don't emblazon the NRA logo on the gun safety program because it's not about getting members, it's about keeping kids safe in school. The Brady Campaign likes to call themselves a "gun safety" organization but where are their animated cartoons telling kids to not touch a gun?
What's needed is gun control.
That's presuming an outcome not supported by the evidence. Alaska and New York have similar murder rates. We know why the murder rate in Alaska is so high, depression is a serious problem. That kind of happens in a place where the sun might shine for only three hours per day in the winter, and it's brutally cold. The state also attracts a lot of young men with not much better to do than turn a wrench on a far off oil well, or spend days at sea fishing. They get in fights, they get drunk, and they tend to kill each other. What's New York's excuse? Or London? London just passed New York City in the number of murders for the first time in a long time.
http://www.breitbart.com/londo...
What's London's excuse for such high rates of crime? They already banned all the guns? Are they going to ban them again? Maybe we need crime control to control the crime. Seems sensible to me.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Less people shot, of course, doesn't correlate to less people killed. Knives, vehicles, and bombs still account for some pretty large numbers in mass-killing attacks, especially in places where guns are less prevalent. See here for my take on why that might not necessarily be a good thing.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
"Something must be done!"
This is something.
Therefore it must be done!!!!
(how bad laws are created)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Luckily bullets drop out of the air at property lines, so there's no worry about them straying onto public or private property.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
But needing to show that you know the laws pertaining to gun ownership, that you understand gun safety both in usage and in storage before being allowed to own a gun
One, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is a right, like voting is a right. Change "gun ownership" to "Voting" and "gun safety" to "Constitutional law" and you'll start to see where the problem is in your logic.
BTW, I consider VOTING to be far more dangerous than owning a fire arm. People voting to take away my liberty and property is a huge problem that most liberals have no problem with. The passions of the people stirred is why democracies are inherently dangerous to liberty, and why we need constraining documents to control the powers of the collective.
Not that any socialist would understand.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I stand corrected. I didn't take that into consideration, but that wasn't really the point either
Never is, with you anti-civil-liberties types. All you care about is your agenda, facts and reality be damned.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The GP post made a simpe (racist) mistake, by saying "black". The problem is single parent families, destroyed by government welfare programs and a nice feedback loop of shitty ass parenting from the generation before.
Kids need two parents. One male, one female. That is not to say that a single mom/dad can't raise kids, it just means it is much more likely that they can't. There are somethings a man can teach a son and daughter that a mom simply can't. Likewise, there are some things a mom can teach sons and daughters that a man cannot.
This isn't to say that we should dismiss single parents, but rather, we ought to be encouraging men and women to form permanent pairs for the purposes of raising kids. Everything else is less than ideal, and should be rare.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving, and that you have sufficient skill and knowledge to minimize the danger you pose to others when driving. This, US citizens are fine with.
But needing to show that you know the laws pertaining to gun ownership, that you understand gun safety both in usage and in storage before being allowed to own a gun, that they balk at. It boggles the mind.
It doesn't if you bother to understand the language used.
Nowhere does the Constitution state "the right of the people to own and drive automobiles shall not be infringed."
Conversely, there are a number of places where that documents states that other "rights of the people" can't be taken away - one of those rights is the right to personal armament.
So unless you're arguing that the phrase "the right of the people" does not imply an individual right (like in the case of the 4th Amendment), you have no legitimate basis for your stance.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Do you need a license to be free from unlawful search and seizure? Both the 2nd and 4th contain the phrase, "the right of the people" in identical context, but no one ever argues that there isn't an individual right to be free from unlawful search...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
and there is no place else considered civilised on this planet where so many people gets killed with guns
Why limit this to "civilized" nations? That's just cherry picking the data. We can excuse crime in "uncivilized" nations because that's just something that "uncivilized" nations have a problem with, is that it? Here's an idea, let's consider America an "uncivilized" nation. That way we can compare the USA on equal footing with all those other "uncivilized" nations with higher gun death rates like Mexico and Brazil. I'm pretty sure the people in Mexico and Brazil might be a bit offended on being considered "uncivilized" nations. Venezuela was pretty "civilized" until the communists took over and took everyone's guns away, or at least tried. Now it's a hell hole where murders and suicides by firearms are six times that of the USA.
What makes America a "civilized" nation? Maybe it's just a nation and being "civilized" or not is irrelevant. Seems to me that even though there's enough guns in America to arm every man, woman, child, and household pet that violent crime is pretty average among all nations. America is actually quite safe, especially if people avoid crime ridden places like DC, New York, and Chicago, which by the way has very restrictive gun laws even by international standards.
Also, why limit the death count to just those with guns? I don't care if London is seeing such high murder rates recently because of people being shot, run over by a truck, or stabbed with a knife. They banned all the "assault weapons" in London and banned most every other kind of firearm too. Now what? Ban them again? Start restricting the purchase of knives and make all drivers get a license? I believe they've already done that and for quite some time too. I'm guessing that the UK is going to look as "uncivilized" as the USA pretty soon. They got problems over there and it's not because of the guns. We got problems in the USA too, but that's not because of the guns either.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So basically YouTubers aren't going to be allowed to eat outside any more? Or they'll put a Lexan cage around the patio?
A common retort on Slashdot these days is "X is a private company, they can do whatever they want" and "free speech doesn't extend to privately owned companies". While true, it doesn't address an increasingly pervasive problem. These online forums owned by private companies are often the only way to share information and communicate online. At what point does a private company's policy equate to government level censorship, and what does that mean for free society?
This is the danger behind Youtube and Googles decision to not interact with anyone using it's service at any level beyond automated messages - the toxicity and politics that drove this are entirely of their own manufacture. People were left to interpret their actions by these automated messages and vague press statements, their bots inscrutable actions which can have significant financial impact on it's users. These users are left to draw their own conclusions about Youtubes intent. Nasim seems to have drawn the conclusion that Youtube was out to get her (from her latest videos mentioning the demonetization of her exercise videos), and she went on the offensive.
I can't help but wonder that if Youtube offered any form of direct, non-automated user support - a hotline, a chat room, a ticket system - this person might have been able to work things out with them and taken a more peaceful route. But we'll never know.
I have a feeling they'll hire some armed guards. You know, the ones with guns. You know, because that's how presidents, armored cars, the military, and everyone everywhere all the time protects important things from someone else with a gun. I hope they learned a lesson here. Maybe some of their employees should have had guns on them.
Somebody mod this man up.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I have not tried it. But I suspect it is way easier to get a gun illegally in the US than it is in europe, if only for the fact that there are so many people from which one could be stolen.
Nullius in verba
https://www.nationalreview.com...
Sounds like a lot of Americans are taking steps to increase their security.
Go ahead, keep talking about banning guns. All that does is increase profits at Smith & Wesson.
Background checks are a rather poor indication of real gun sales because not every check means a gun sold (either because of a denial or police running a check before issuing a permit to purchase a firearm) and a single background check can be run for multiple guns sold (people with a permit to purchase could buy several guns with no additional check). With nearly 3 million background checks run that could mean something like 2 million or 4 million new guns being sold.
You think every gun sold should be registered so we can track gun sales better? Go ahead, propose that in your state or federally, that will just mean more people buy guns before the law goes into effect. You want people to register guns they already own? Well, that would violate ex post facto laws. Then there's another problem with that, the government can't force people to register guns they don't know about.
It's too late to do any kind of gun ban or registration now. Not only are people generally not pleased with government telling them they can't own guns but it's now possible to "print" a gun at home with a computer. Go look up "ghost gun". There cannot be any effective gun laws any more, technology made any kind of gun laws obsolete. I guess legislators will have to think of something else to scare people with. They can try to scare people with gun bans, and then people buy more CNC mills to make their own guns at home.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/l...
A 50-year-old gun law makes homemade guns legal to own, and the only way to regulate the firearms is for Congress to take legislative action.
Yeah, good luck with that. What kind of law would stop this? I mean you can ban the making of guns at home but there's no way to enforce it. The government can confiscate the ones they find but someone will just make another just like it.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If that is indeed true (and I've seen no evidence that it is; if it were, I would assume smuggling guns into the country would be much less profitable and almost never done, which is not the case), that speaks to a need for laws regarding the storage and safe keeping of guns, not the removal thereof. We have such laws for firearms dealers and, as a result, guns are stolen from law enforcement more frequently than they're stolen from gun shops.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Besides, the Tangerine Troglodyte was a Democrat when he was doing all the illicit hanky-panky, and we were told over and over that it's a Very Bad Thing to go after someone about sexual misbehavior back in the 90s. At least, if the person doing it was a Democrat.
Do those platforms provide a way for content creators to monetize their content?
The simple solution: Guns aren't the problem. Crazed maniacs with spoilt brain-meats aren't the problem.
The sensation-mongers who are determined to give the crazed maniacs with guns extravagant, unlimited publicity for their "cause", re-hash their grievances over and over for weeks, give the maniacs everything their heart desires if they go on a shooting spree.... THAT is the problem.
Outlaw reporting of this kind of incident. Seriously outlaw, with nasty sharp teeth. I'm talking about long prison terms for the reporters, editors, owners, anyone who knew or should have known that one of the stories was in the pipeline and didn't act to stop it. Shut down and confiscate the newspapers, TV and radio stations, and networks that refuse to comply with this very reasonable modest proposal.
You'd never hear about this sort of thing happening in a proper police state.
And the irony is that this was done by an SJW type and not a "gun nut".
It's not really all that ironic if you've been paying attention to SJW culture the last couple years. Those fuckers are violent.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Yes, but how often does it happen at a given location? How often does it happen at Google?
For a given heavily-hardened school or airport or corporate office, how many active shooter attacks do those metal detectors and armed security forces actually stop?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The suicide line is bait. US has a larger proportion of homicides than other nations, but a huge amount of suicides. Take the suicides out of the equation and the number is a lot smaller... take it out of the equation for Canada and Switzerland and America's numbers are enormous. Switzerland actually is at parity with the US for firearms deaths per 100,000--a larger portion of theirs come from suicides. Canada has fewer total firearms deaths per 100,000 than either.
People are trying mostly to not look at the problem, or to look like they're looking at the problem.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Imagine a scenario where Pulse had plainclothes armed security. Same deal. The issue here is that gun free zones are soft targets for people with guns, coupled with the fact that we have people who want to kill. As long as guns exist, that will be a fact.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
But they're (outwardly, at least) anti-gun...
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
So, your argument appears to be, "Not everyone is killed by guns every day, so..."
I'm not sure what you're saying. Given the mentality of people who make their living recording YouTube videos, I'm pretty sure they should have a moat with lasers for security.
All of them?
You are welcome on my lawn.
All of them?
On the one hand, there's no evidence that metal detectors have reduced the number of mass shootings in schools that have them.
On the other, I work in a building where you can kick the all-glass front door in and come through with an AR-15 pretty easily, although there are easier ways in without raising the alarm until you start shooting. Hasn't happened in 40 years, although somebody showed up with a (fake) bomb once. This despite protesters and several crazy people routinely showing up here and a large amount of bad public sentiment.
You could also shoot up the local super market, college, or 7-11. Those don't have metal detectors and armed guards.
So all of zero?
Of course we could say, "Hey, someone gets shot somewhere in America every day! That means every day, we need to be on MAXIMUM ALERT for an active shooter IN OUR OFFICE! We must install magnetometers and hire a paramilitary security force to cavity search our employees every single morning!" That would be stupid, and wouldn't accomplish anything except to annoy people.
Here's one for you: cars catch fire sometimes. Does your car have a fuel pump kill switch and built-in automatic fire extinguishers?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Whoa there. You were talking about "heavily hardened" places, not just somewhere that's thrown up a few metal detectors. I've been to schools with metal detectors that have one very sleepy security guard manning them. A metal detector alone does not make a facility "heavily hardened".
Second, you mentioned airports. There have been zero mass shootings at airports behind the metal detectors. The only shooting we've seen at an airport was Ft Lauderdale, and that was in the baggage area, where there are no metal detectors. So, in the case of airports, metal detectors and the "heavily hardened" facility have stopped 100% of the mass shootings.
See, the thing is this: mass shootings require gun(s). Without guns, there are no mass shootings. As in zero. There have been no mass shootings in the United States using bombs, cars, knives, clubs or glaives.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So basically you're victim blaming YouTube.
You're using victim blaming wrong. Victim blaming is when the victim did nothing wrong but people still blame them.
YouTube is very much to blame for what happened.
So the company that got shot up is to blame for not paying someone what she wanted to be paid.
No, GP's argument is that shootings like this are really very rare, and unpredictable, so to stop a very small number of shootings we'd have to have massive security all over.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
YouTube had no contractual arrangement. YouTube is a free service. YouTube allows people to make money off their videos because YouTube believes it will make money that way. If YouTube concludes that hosting some things will cost money for whatever reason, YouTube will drop them. It's that simple.
It's foolish to rely on a business relationship without some sort of commitment, and YouTube doesn't make such commitments. Nor does YouTube have to provide free speech. Forcing them to host stuff they think will damage their brand or their profits is a bad idea for several reasons.
If people are getting annoyed by YouTube, they can set up their own video sites. Getting to be as profitable as YouTube isn't going to be easy, but it's possible. If too many people dislike YouTube, then they'll go to MyTube, and YouTube will lose relevance.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Now, is it in YouTube's financial interest to chop advertisers up that way? I don't know, and I don't think you do either.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Or get rid of guns. It's hard to have a shooting without guns.
You are welcome on my lawn.
By that logic, she took away my income, since she wasn't paying me anything. I should have shot her first.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
That there is no country with zero gun crime does not mean that it's as easy to get an illegal gun in that country. It just means that at least one person managed to get their hands on one. If it where easy then every criminal would get one but still a place like Chicago have more shootings per day than what we have per year in out entire country and then from what I can gather Chicago is far from the worst place in the US when it comes to shootings.
From one of your links (The Guardian):
A claim over the weekend that London’s murder rate in February and March exceeded New York’s has been dismissed by police chiefs because it was based on too short a period. New York had 292 murders in 2017 and has had 50 so far this year.
That's great, but how translucent will their bags be?
This argument is just totally baffling to me. You're here on Slashdot successfully communicating instead of being forced to do it on Youtube. And there are many thousands of other websites. And if you don't like any of those websites, you can do it yourself. Holy crap, what a time to be alive! The DIY approach is actually easy and viable! It's not like you have to go buy up controlling interest in a newspaper anymore. Anyone can make a website. Assuming they're alive/exist, your grandmother can do it. Your granddaughter can do it.
Jesus H Christ, get onto the dark web and you can even pretty safely make criminal speech without any repercussions. They'd like to restrict your right to free speech, but they're unable do.
You can even use The Enemy's own resources to get started on subverting their dominance: I'm sure Google Search can lead you right to plenty of Apache HOWTOs.
What am I wrong about here? I feel like what you're saying and what I know, have us on completely different planets. I don't get it.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I read elsewhere in this discussion (and the poster did provide a reference to back it up, i just can't find the post at the moment) that something like 60% of the guns used in Chicago shootings come from out of state and the other 40% come from neighboring cities, which accounts for 100% of guns used in Chicago shootings, which seems plausible given that there are 0 gun shops in Chicago. That leaves one asking why those guns are entering Chicago before being used in criminal activity. That is, why Chicago and not the neighboring cities? Why Illinois and not the neighboring states?
What is it about Chicago that makes guns magically migrate there and shoot people?
Might there be some other factor? Hmmmm???? Maybe? Just maybe? Is it possible? Would guns, possibly, be replaced with something else in Chicago if they weren't available?
That the neighboring cities and states from where the guns "migrate" don't have the same issues Chicago -- and that there are no guns "native" to Chicago, as there are no gun shops in Chicago -- does seem to indicate that the problem is something other than guns.
One might argue that getting rid of guns (a pipe dream, mind you, to say nothing of whether I would support it if it were possible) would save lives because a knife wound or a fist to the face (to ignore vehicular attacks and bombings, of course) is less likely to be fatal (and that's not even true of a knife wound, mind you). To those people, I will say this: Wouldn't you rather save more lives by addressing the underlying issues which are causing people to want to kill each other in the first place? If we can do that and retain our gun rights, well, why shouldn't we?
After all, guns only account for about 1/4 of the weapons used in violent crimes. Clearly, something other than a gun is making 3/4 of criminals choose to harm others. Hell, something other than a gun is making 27% of murderers choose to kill. You can probably assume the gun isn't what's making 1/4 of criminals choose to harm or 73% of killers choose to kill; guns simply aren't that powerful. I mean, unless mine is going out at night when I'm asleep and killing people I don't know about, all it's ever shot at is paper targets.
There were 1,248,185 violent crimes reported in the US in 2016 (the most recent data available). Of those, 11,004 homicides (that includes 435 justifiable homicides -- self defense shootings -- by police officers and 331 by citizens), 125,271 robberies, and 190,781 assaults involved guns. That's 327,056 violent crimes involving guns, out of 1,248,185, or roughly 26%. Mind you, only in the 11,004 homicides (just under 0.9%) did someone actually die, and there were 15,070 homicides that year -- 73% involving guns. That is, getting rid of guns would save the lives of 3% of victims of gun-related crimes, or 0.9% of victims of violent crimes assuming the perpetrators wouldn't fall back on another weapon. In reality, the number of lives saved would be much smaller.
When you subtract the 766 self defense shootings (about 7%), there were 10,288 homicides that year involving guns. Mind you, that's also 766 innocent people who would have been killed had they not pulled the trigger first -- probably more, had the criminal who was killed in each of those incidents been allowed to live, as they would have likely gone
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Sure, but we all know that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
My point was that if the only thing that could stop a bad homicidal driver were a good homicidal driver I think we would see les driving regulation.
Funny, "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" doesn't mean we need more guns. It means we need to take care in restricting gun rights so that we're restricting the rights of those who are unfit to handle a weapon without abridging the rights of those who can do so safely. It's not the fault of responsible gun owners who support common sense regulations that actually work that you choose to misinterpret it to mean "we need more guns".
Just because Arnie Grape might not be fit to handle a firearm doesn't mean I should be denied my constitutional right to do so if I've demonstrated that I am. If you want to argue that it shouldn't be a right, you're barking up the wrong tree seeking regulation and should, rather, seek to repeal the 2nd. Good luck with that, by the way.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
This isn't a contractual arrangement that can be won in court. This is about morality, and morally YouTube should not have suddenly turned off many users income. Like when a wife kills a cheating husband, it's not illegal to cheat but he isn't an innocent victim.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
So the company that got shot up is to blame for not paying someone what she wanted to be paid.
No, the company that got shot up is to blame for stopping payment to someone for something they had previously been paid for. Essentially she was fired without cause and without notice. YouTube needs to realize we're not sheep, that if you poke a dog with a stick long enough eventually it will bite back and while the dog will be blamed for biting it had a good reason.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
In Australia its pretty well impossible to get something like an AK or AR , even illegally. They just are not around to obtain anymore.
When you think AK and AR, do you think full-auto? Because the ones we can get here are just rifles, semi-auto, same as any other repeating rifle. We haven't been able to buy new-stock automatics since 1986. While we can still technically buy automatic weapons, they are heavily regulated, must be registered, must have been made and privately owned prior to the 1986 ban and, due to their relative rarity, sell for $10k or more. Nobody uses their $10k gun that's registered with the federal government to mow down 50 people.
See how it works in the real USA? Not the retarded fantasy USA the rest of the world seems to think exists?
Now, as for how it works in Australia...
You can buy this which, with a 16 round capacity (15 round magazine + one in the chamber) sure ain't no six-shooter. I can buy a version of the same gun but, in California, I can on'y get it with a 10 round magazine. Who can kill more people, and quicker?
Have you even looked at the guns available in Australia?
That is not a single-shot shotgun, either. In fact, here is a 10 round semi-automatic 308 winmag rifle comparable to what I can buy here in the states.
Funny, I thought you said you couldn't get shit like that Down Under.
Perhaps you should learn your own country's gun laws before judging mine?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
We're not sheep? You view yourself as an employee because you signed up for a service?
Did you read that graph?
There are only 4 states with a lower murder rate than England and Wales, and only 10 with a lower rate than Scotland. The UK, as a whole, has a lower murder rate than the US as a whole.
So yes, the UK is safer than anywhere except a few mostly rural states in the US
For the record, I don't think a ban on guns is going to be as effective in the US as in other places (like Australia) for cultural reasons, even if it could be enacted effectively. There are a number of criticisms that can be made of the fairly superficial comparison of murder rates between countries, but your rebuttal isn't among them.
"And banning bridges would prevent people from jumping from them. I see your argument but I think it's a very stupid one."
the only reason I can think of for someone to think that is that they are stupid.
"What's London's excuse for such high rates of crime?"
It's a big city with a criminal underground that was there before the US was settled by Europeans?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-murder-rate-new-york-compare-worse-stabbings-knife-crime-teenagers-statistics-figures-a8286866.html
YouTube took away this woman's income
She certainly seemed to believe this to be the case.
She produced a product which she sold to a single buyer. The buyer stopped purchasing her product. There was no contract, real or implied between them - except the usage agreement which specified that this could happen at any time. In no other situation would the buyer be described as 'taking away her income' or be considered to have any obligation to the seller.
In other industries, the seller would be expected to find another buyer or change what is being produced to match the needs of the market. The problem that I see is that the people complaining about Youtube's new policy aren't complaining about Youtube not paying for content, they are complaining that Youtube doesn't want to pay for the content they produce. It happens. Especially when what you are selling is often faddish, niche and superficial. If the content had real value, there would be other buyers. It seems more as though the people complaining have grown accustomed to being paid for being minor celebrities and when their 10 minutes of 'fame' have passed can't reconcile that.
If a thief stole your wallet
Loaded language. Youtube is not a thief. The income she may derive from the sale of her products is not the same as the money she owns. She still has her products. No-one has taken away anything except that they have declined to buy them. FFS, her videos were still being hosted. For free.
I know amateur, semi-professional and professional film makers. They produce work for their own pleasure, for art and for market - and the material they produce for market is made to appeal to the market they are attempting to sell to and whether it sells or not, whether the market changes or not, none of them think that the buyer owes them an income.
I am sorry that this woman reached the point where this was the only solution she thought she had. I am saddened that others have been hurt - those directly injured and their families and her friends and family. However, blaming Youtube is very much victim blaming.
Essentially she was fired without cause and without notice.
No, she was not. Nothing in the arrangement between her and Youtube could be or should have been seen as an employer/employee. At best it's a seller/buyer and without some kind of agreement or guarantee then expecting a buyer to continue to buy your product is naive. Shooting them is a sign of a deeply disturbed mind and your support of her position is disturbing.
YouTube needs to realize we're not sheep
Ah, you're a content creator who has been affected by Youtube's decision. I am sorry. Genuinely. I think that the observation that multinational corporations have little care or concern for the people that are affected by their decisions is accurate. What I cannot understand is why you have or had anything to do with them.
that if you poke a dog with a stick long enough eventually it will bite back and while the dog will be blamed for biting it had a good reason.
Then I sincerely hope that what you've learned is that when a large corporation provides you with a free service and offers to pay a portion of the revenue they generate from your content with no contract or guarantee that expecting that to continue is foolish.
I expect that you've taken your valuable content and found alternative methods of 'monetising' it - Patreon or similar, perhaps. Maybe hosting it yourself and asking for donations. Perhaps selling directly to a buyer.
and while the dog will be blamed for biting it had a good reason.
Turn it around. You/she took money from a corporation and they didn't care about you. What exactly were you expecting?
This is about morality, and morally YouTube should not have suddenly turned off many users income
You've an odd sense of entitlement, and a strange idea about income.
Youtube no longer wishes to pay for certain types of content. The market changed. No other industry works the way you seem to think this should
apparent intent to mass murder
You've selectively quoted just 'mass murder', the GP is careful to note that this appeared to be an intention to mass murder (and the FBI define same as four or more murders without 'cooling off'). The GP is accurate and correct.
Wouldn't you rather save more lives by addressing the underlying issues which are causing people to want to kill each other in the first place?
Yes. Agreed 100%. Guns and their availability may be a confounding factor, a force multiplier may or may not exacerbate an existing situation, but banning them without addressing the fundamental problems that give rise to violent crime is unlikely to be effective, let alone workable. At best it's damage mitigation (if you can get it to work), at worse it's sop that draws effort away from change that might actually do something.
You can probably assume the gun isn't what's making 1/4 of criminals choose to harm or 73% of killers choose to kill
Straw man. No-one is saying guns make people kill. The closest arguments are that they make it easier to kill, and so may make someone intent on harm _choose_ to escalate because it's easy and/or that they change what would have been an injury (with another weapon, or none) into a fatality.
That's 327,056 violent crimes involving guns, out of 1,248,185,
Bad math.
- The total for violent crime that you report "include the offenses of murder, rape (legacy definition), robbery, and aggravated assault" (emphasis mine). You then list totals for homicide, robbery and assault. You omit rape and any other crimes included in the original that are not covered by those categories (I don't know if any exist, but as the statement uses 'include' and not, for example 'comprises' I don't think you can assume).
- You further state that it is only in the category of homicide that someone died. Is that the case? If someone is dies during a robbery, is that counted as homicide (not from the US and couldn't see a definition from your links).
- You claim that each defensive killing would be another person killed had they not killed in turn. You assume 100% death in whatever they were defending against. Even if every defensive shooting that resulted in a killing were against an intention to kill, from your own figures not all attempts succeed.
Your premise may be correct, but this is sloppy. Crime happens. Violent crime happens. People are killed by violent crime - sometimes deliberately. You contend that removing guns would have little effect on the numbers killed. I agree with your assertion, earlier, that focussing on the cause of violent crime is more useful and more likely to succeed than concentrating on guns alone, but I don't think your (use of) figures support your contention that guns do not have much of an impact on people killed in and by violent crime.
You go on to assume that crime is static and without easy access to a firearm (this may be true, but you simply assert it) violent crime would use another weapon.
With respect to the argument 'when it's a crime to own a gun, only criminals will own one' - this is scaremongering. It would be extraordinarily difficult to remove guns from the US. It would take a lot of effort, involve years (possibly generations) and would have a host of serious consequences, but claiming that crime would increase is an unproven assertion. In countries where it is mostly only criminals that have guns, they are mostly used among and on criminals. When you don't _need_ a gun to rob a store why make it easy for the police to identify you as a criminal when you can get away with a knife or bat? As you say, a host of violent criminals do just fine with these already.
Removing the pool of available weapons reduces the pool of weapons available illegally. No, the criminals who already have one probably won't give it up, but over time those that are held by criminals will be lost, destroyed and seized. In time there will be fewer guns to steal from legal owners and fewer in the hands of criminals. Maybe the influx of smuggled and illegally manufactured guns will meet or exceed the rate that they are removed. Maybe not. Different argument.
Whether that's feasible or the best use of resources is another matter, but I disagree with the conclusions you draw.
London (which has gun control) is safer than Houston (where everybody has a gun).
https://www.numbeo.com/crime/c...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Patreon.
It's important to understand this: it is unrealistic to expect that you can milk the monetization cash cow just by uploading a video on YouTube. No, it's not that simple. You have to build your own audience and followers. It is hard work. And if you have a good relationship with your fans, then you could ask them to support you on Patreon. It's easier to make subsistence that way. You won't get rich, but hopefully it will allow you to keep doing what you already enjoy.
Advertisement money only comes to those who are already successful, pretty much like any commercial media. It's that way on YouTube as well. You should be glad that YouTube and others have built nice video hosting platforms that you can use for free. At least you have the tool. Don't blame YouTube for your failure to build your own fan base. What makes you think you're entitled?
I once had a signature.
While we can still technically buy automatic weapons, they are heavily regulated, must be registered, ... due to their relative rarity, sell for $10k or more. Nobody uses their $10k gun that's registered with the federal government to mow down 50 people.
and
Have you even looked at the guns available in Australia [gunworld.com.au]?
Yeah. They are heavily regulated, must be registered, are relatively rare and consequently cost more than $10k and no-one uses them to mow down 50 people.
Without a pool of legal weapons to steal from, most criminals using guns are using single/low-capacity shotguns and older handguns.
The GP said it's 'pretty well impossible'. You even quote them. .308 you identify as a semi-auto. It's a bolt action. You'll look less like a tool if your examples show what you think they show.
Then you find a link to where you can buy semi automatic rifles. That aren't in stock. And will only be ordered for you when you provide a letter from the Attorney General. Also, you link to a
You're arguing 'impossible'. That's not what the GP said.
Perhaps you should learn your own country's gun laws [wikipedia.org] before judging mine?
Have you? Because nothing in there disproves the GP.
Straw man. No-one is saying guns make people kill.
I neither built up, nor tore down, any argument there, ergo not a straw man. I was making a point; one which you, in your previous paragraph, claimed to agree with, but apparently completely missed.
You omit rape and any other crimes included in the original that are not covered by those categories
I tallied up the numbers in the statistics provided. If I didn't list a number for the category, there was no number provided by the FBI's statistics for that category. Blame the source, not my math.
You go on to assume that crime is static and without easy access to a firearm (this may be true, but you simply assert it) violent crime would use another weapon.
There's really only one way to study it and, well, if I'm right I sure don't want that study conducted. In short, I'd love to be proven wrong, but the chance of being proven right makes me really not want to see that study done. If you follow what I'm saying.
With respect to the argument 'when it's a crime to own a gun, only criminals will own one' - this is scaremongering.
Hardly. Criminals already don't care that their guns are illegal. Why would they suddenly start caring when our guns are also illegal? The simple answer is: they wouldn't. And how do I know the criminals' guns aren't legally purchased? Virtually nobody uses a legally purchased firearm in the commission of a violent crime. From the linked PDF:
Most perpetrators (79%) were carrying a gun that did not belong to them. More than 30% of the guns recovered were reported stolen by owners when the FTU contacted them. For 44% of the guns, whether the gun was stolen was either unknown or not able to be determined.
It would be extraordinarily difficult to remove guns from the US
Indeed it would, a point that I made myself when I said "one might argue that getting rid of guns (a pipe dream, mind you, to say nothing of whether I would support it if it were possible) would save lives".
When you don't _need_ a gun to rob a store why make it easy for the police to identify you as a criminal when you can get away with a knife or bat? As you say, a host of violent criminals do just fine with these already.
When you've already got the gun... I'd suggest you think about that for a moment, but maybe it's better if you put yourself in the mindset of the average criminal and don't think. We're not talking about masterminds, here; we're talking about junkies and low-level scum who wouldn't already be in possession of an illegal firearm if they were thinking that far ahead. Yes, those people would use their guns unnecessarily; they already do, that's partly why we have this problem with guns in the first place. What more proof do you need than the current situation? But, again, there's only one way to know for sure and that's a study you really don't want to see conducted.
Removing the pool of available weapons reduces the pool of weapons available illegally.
You have no idea how many weapons enter this country illegally and I can't credibly speak to that number without naming my source, which may have repercussions for him. That said, Customs stops only about 10% (at their own estimate) of the guns coming into the country. That's on average a trunk full each day and a shipping container or two each month. Removing my legally purchased and owned, well looked after and unlikely to be stolen gun from my possession won't make a dent in that.
No, the criminals who already have one probably won't give it up, but over time those that are held by criminals will be lost, destroyed and seized.
That also won't make
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Nobody's proposing ending gun violence with more gun violence. Care to try again?
Call to arm teachers. It got political. You may have heard about it. I think that Trump guy mentioned it.
(not from the US; think both Democrats and Republicans are politicians and therefore lying weasels without the charm; trying for a little levity; pleasepleaseplease can this not get political?)
I haven't heard a single person advocate for more guns, that's just a strawman your kind put up
Take a deep breath.
Some people are characterising the call for arming teachers or increasing police on campus/schools or hiring more security guards as adding more guns. It's cheap rhetoric, but it only works because on some level it's true.
Well it seems like he and I both got our facts wrong, then. The only mass shooting in recent history in the US with nearly 50 dead was Pulse (49 dead and 53 wounded) and it was not an AR-15 that was used. In fact, the fire rate averaged roughly one shot every 2 minutes, it just went on for a very long time. That could just as well have been accomplished with the bolt action I linked to. Hell, the same number of shots could have been made in a handful of minutes with that rifle, while the Pulse shooter took nearly 4 hours.
Could the SigSauer MCX that was used have fired off the ~110 rounds that were fired that night much more quickly? Sure. Does that mean a bold action rifle couldn't have fired off the same ~110 rounds in 4 hours? No. It sure as hell could have.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
*bolt action
Note to self: proofread BEFORE posting.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Call to arm teachers. It got political. You may have heard about it. I think that Trump guy mentioned it.
Your joke aside, owning a gun is not a violent act. Neither is carrying one.
Some people are characterising the call for arming teachers or increasing police on campus/schools or hiring more security guards as adding more guns. It's cheap rhetoric, but it only works because on some level it's true.
Firing back at your humor with some of my own: You mean like YouTube piling on the armed guards in the wake of their crackdown on gun content on their platform?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Your joke aside, owning a gun is not a violent act. Neither is carrying one
No, but I assume the purpose of arming teachers is not so that they can simply own nor just carry a gun. The implication is that in the face of a potential shooter, that teachers would use their guns to defend themselves and their students. This is violence.
Please don't be this disingenuous.
Ever stop to think it might be a deterrent? After all, these mass shootings always seem to happen in "gun free zones". Nothing disingenuous about my remark at all.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Just stop.
The original poster said that in Australia it's nearly impossible to get an AK or AR so you can't mow down 50 people. The implication is that this is possible in the US. A weaker implication is that it has happened. It's clearly an exaggeration.
But even if they stated it plainly, it still doesn't make your argument any more correct.
You were wrong. You misread or attacked a straw man, drew conclusions from skimming or not understanding the law and provided links that were inaccurate or didn't support the argument you were making.
Then you wander off talking about bolt action fire rates. I assume you mean this to be an argument that because a bolt action rifle is more readily available in Australia that it would be possible to have a shooting like the Pulse shooting. That still doesn't contradict anything the original poster said.
Please stop. You're wrong and just digging deeper.
Firearms are heavily restricted in Australia. Even bolt action rifles. It's almost impossible to obtain a semi-auto rifle. Your link to a website where you can order one with a letter from the AG doesn't disprove that. Your link to the wiki on Australian firearm law confirms what the original poster said, not what you said.
neither built up, nor tore down, any argument there, ergo not a straw man. I was making a point; one which you, in your previous paragraph, claimed to agree with, but apparently completely missed.
I was careful to express the part I agreed with, then highlighted a sentence from the paragraph where you expressed
You can probably assume the gun isn't what's making 1/4 of criminals choose to harm or 73% of killers choose to kill
Why would I need or want to make this assumption unless it is to answer the implied question. Which is a straw man.
I tallied up the numbers in the statistics provided. If I didn't list a number for the category, there was no number provided by the FBI's statistics for that category. Blame the source, not my math
[X] is a total that includes totals from [a,b,c and d]. You've summed [a], [b] and [c] and consider the lack of [d] or being able to show that [a,b,c and d] are the only elements is a problem with the source and that you can use the numbers the way you have? I repeat my claim. Your math is bad.
There's really only one way to study it and, well, if I'm right I sure don't want that study conducted. In short, I'd love to be proven wrong, but the chance of being proven right makes me really not want to see that study done. If you follow what I'm saying
No. You could look at places where guns have been removed or restricted and looking at the stats for violent crime. In Australia, for eg, there was a brief spike immediately following the buy-back/ban and then a steady decline. It's not conclusive as there are known to be confounding factors, but if you were to take similar statistics from other cases you may be able to back your claim. Your inability to provide proof of your assertion doesn't make your assertion any more true. If you know what I'm saying.
WRT scaremongering.
You claimed an increase in gun crime will occur when/if guns are criminalised. It may seem simple to you; it may seem obvious. It's not. It's an assertion you haven't backed up with anything like evidence. For eg, show somewhere where guns were made illegal and where the use of guns by criminals increased. I've no idea what you think showing that most criminals use illegal guns shows. You need to show that removing guns from legal owners will _increase_ gun use by criminals. That was your assertion and I'm calling it scaremongering. And until you can show an argument or evidence and not simply your assertion, then that's all it is.
Removing the pool of available weapons reduces the pool of weapons available illegally.
Nothing you say about how hard that might be to implement contradicts this
There is no argument to be had
Clearly.
but you go on and believe whatever you want
Thank you for your condescension.
Ever stop to think it might be a deterrent?
Yes. And I consider the threat of violence to be violence. But that's beside the point.
You claimed that no one was calling for more gun violence. I have provided examples where people have called for teachers to be armed, and others have explicitly talked about said teachers being able to stop a shooter - not deter. Your attempt to not admit you were wrong was to try to quibble over carrying/owning and you've compounded it with arguing that deterrence isn't violence.
It doesn't matter. People have called for teachers to be armed to be able to stop, not deter, potential shooters. Not carry. Not own. Not deter.
You were wrong. Can you admit that?
and get a real job instead of just sitting in front of a camera all day making stupid videos.
Or we could take the simpler option, repeal the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, and more heavily regulate gun sales and ownership. Then we don't need maximum alert, just standard situational awareness.
Oh wait, no, "mah guns". Sorry.
Veganism isn't about not eating meat, it's about not harming animals. That's why they don't consume animal products. Humans are technically animals, no?
I enjoyed the way you put that, but vegans don't eat anything from animals because they are against animals coming to harm. Not because they don't like eating meat. That's why they're so much more annoying than vanilla vegetarians.
Did you just suggest that what she did was justifiable?
metal detectors and the "heavily hardened" facility have stopped 100% of the mass shootings.
So, there was ONE shooting in a populated, soft target several meters from the hard target, ever. These soft targets are directly adjacent to all locations with hard airport targets. Those hardening measures stop all of the mass shootings.
That being... all zero of them?
mass shootings require gun(s). Without guns, there are no mass shootings.
And so the solution is to make sure the guns are around the crowd just outside, not the crowd that has managed to get inside already?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
[X] is a total that includes totals from [a,b,c and d]. You've summed [a], [b] and [c] and consider the lack of [d] or being able to show that [a,b,c and d] are the only elements is a problem with the source and that you can use the numbers the way you have? I repeat my claim. Your math is bad.
Okay, fine, subtract [d] for yourself and see how little the result changes. That link was in the post you're complaining about, the numbers are right there for you.
Hell, don't do it yourself (unless you really care to check my work, in which case please do), the new total is 1,152,455. That doesn't affect the murder rate percentage at all, as that whole number is still part of the new total, and you can see that the total has reduced by less than 100,000. The percentage of, well call them "qualified", violent crimes involving guns, then, is just a hair over 28%, well within the margin of error for most studies and, given that the statistics available only pertain to crimes reported, which will be a subset of crimes committed the margin of error here should be expected to be a bit higher; the statistical difference between 1,248,185 and 1,152,455 (or 26% and 28%) in this scenario is meaningless. The percentage of gun deaths (murders) relative to "qualified" violent crimes, since I know that's the number you probably really wanted, jumps way up, from 0.9% to 1%. I hope you could feel the sarcasm dripping from my words there. The ratio of homicides to total gun-related violent crime (3%) does not change because all of those are still in the new total.
What a big difference that made, right? If you still think my math is wrong, please correct it for the sake of not spreading misinformation. This is an important subject and it deserves to be discussed openly and honestly. I provided my sources for a reason.
No. You could look at places where guns have been removed or restricted and looking at the stats for violent crime.
You mean like Oakland? I keep mentioning Oakland and nobody wants to respond.
In Australia, for eg, there was a brief spike immediately following the buy-back/ban and then a steady decline.
I did look at Australia. They had many fewer guns than we do and an entirely different social structure. The spike they had there should worry you for the US; ours would be much larger and, given our heritage with guns, would likely not decline. Even if it would eventually decline, it wouldn't really get a chance to as the regulations would be pulled so quickly your head would spin, we'd all get our guns back, and the subject of regulation would never be revisited; that initial spike would be all that was needed to shut up the "get rid of guns for the children" crowd and bolster the argument of the "only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" crowd.
In short, what worked in Australia worked only due to the relatively small number of guns they had in the first place and the relative obscurity of gun culture in the country to begin with. There wasn't a whole lot of debate before the regulations were enacted and the regulations weren't restricting or removing a constitutional right.
Your inability to provide proof of your assertion doesn't make your assertion any more true. If you know what I'm saying.
Again, there is only one way to prove it and it's not the kind of thing I actually want to be right about if that proof comes.
You claimed an increase in gun crime will occur when/if guns are criminalised. It may seem simple to you; it may seem obvious. It's not. It's an assertion you haven't backed up with anything like evidence. For eg, show somewhere where guns were made illegal and where the use of guns by criminals increased.
Note that I never said the
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The second amendment doesn't prevent regulations. That's a NGRA/NRA myth.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Yes. And I consider the threat of violence to be violence. But that's beside the point.
So you consider the fact that, if you punch me in the face, I can and will punch you right back to be violence? Simply having a gun on my person is not a threat of violence. If you are not a threat to me, I am not a threat to you; if you are a threat to me, you damned well better believe I am a threat to you as well, with or without a gun. I don't carry, by the way.
others have explicitly talked about said teachers being able to stop a shooter
Yes, being able to is the deterrent. Mass shooters always choose soft targets, which aren't able to stop them. Change that and they either choose another target or the violence is avoided altogether. In either case, the goal of those people (with whom I don't necessarily agree, mind you) is to make our schools safer and they'll have done so without additional violence if they get their way. That, of course, assumes the teachers are able to maintain control of their weapons and don't, themselves, flip out -- which is why I don't necessarily agree with the idea.
But there is nothing violent in possessing and carrying your own means of self defense. If there was, we would all be in a constant state of violence, as we all have hands and permanently attached to our bodies. Well, not "all" of us, quadriplegics might well be the only people in the world you consider nonviolent.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I meant to say "hands and feet", I guess I deleted too much when I was rewording that statement.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I assume you mean this to be an argument that because a bolt action rifle is more readily available in Australia that it would be possible to have a shooting like the Pulse shooting.
Indeed that's what I mean, and it's 100% factually correct. People are allowed to get facts wrong, you know, and the better of us admit when we do and issue a correction. I did that in my prior post.
So, an incident like Pulse is possible in Australia, yet it doesn't happen. Why? What's different about Australia, other than gun laws which wouldn't prevent Pulse from happening, that prevents an Australian rendition of Pulse?
You'll point out that the bolt action rifle in question is heavily restricted and only available to a subset of the population and I'll point out that a 6-shooter (specifically named in OP's post) could maintain that fire rate as well, so let's just skip it, okay?
No mass shooting in recent US history has relied on a high rate of fire. I'm limiting to the US because I'm admittedly ignorant of mass shootings elsewhere in the world, give the number of them we deal with over here making it somewhat hard to keep up if you have any interest in collecting all the facts -- coupled with the fact that I have other things going on in my life because I'm not exactly a gun nut. Every single mass shooting in recent US history could have been carried out with the guns available to anyone with a "genuine reason", which includes hunting.
And my whole point in bringing up Pulse was to point out that you can mow down 50 people without an AK or AR; a bolt action could do it at the same rate as the Pulse shooter. Okay, so that was only 49, but the 53 wounded have to count for something, as well.
So, what else changed in Australia that is preventing these mass shootings? I'ts certainly not the fact that guns are registered to their owners, as mass shooters typically die during the commission of their crime and, thus, don't give two shits if their gun is registered to them or not.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Why would there be any moral obligation for YouTube to continue offering a free service in ways that make people money? If they find that they were making money themselves on the deal, and now appear to be losing money, how long do you think they should feel morally obligated to continue it for the benefit of someone who wasn't paying them anything?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Or, if you like, we'd have to get rid of massive quantities of guns. Getting massive security in place is a lot easier and more reliable.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Or, we could just study the way all the other large, industrialized democracies in the world manage to minimize gun violence. Surely, we're capable of learning something?
You are welcome on my lawn.
And luckily we all believe the bullets drop out of the air at property lines and never crafted ordinances to punish people for discharging firearms in ways that contradict that belief!
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Trump might be shit scared on the NRA, but the kids in the schools aren't.
The NRA is a civil rights organization; so if the politicians are scared of the NRA then that is a good thing. I don't ever hear anyone complaining about politicians not being opposed, for example, to the ACLU or the EFF. And before someone accuses the NRA of being a gun lobby I would like to remind them that the gun manufacturer industry literally has its own lobby group unassociated with the NRA whose members consist solely of manufacturers, whereas the NRA's member base consists of individuals.
Why not take away her her gun? Gun control in Australia slashed gun crimes.
I have not heard anyone mention if she legally prohibited from having the gun or not but even with gun control laws in place, in California which has the strictest gun control laws rivaled only by that of New York, the police failed to follow up on warnings given by her father to the authorities. But getting down to business, ultimately here is the huge difference: Australia does not have the right to bear arms codified into its constitution, and neither does the UK. It would be literally impossible to do this without amending the constitution which requires either; getting a 2/3rd's majority vote in both the house and senate, or an Article V convention initiated by 2/3rd's the state legislatures, and then said amendment would need to be ratified by 3/4th's of the state legislatures.
What's needed is gun control.
However, despite this, we do have several gun control laws already on the books; the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act and the 1986 Hughes Amendment to name a few. If anyone thinks buying a gun is all that easy then they've clearly never tried to buy a gun before.
That being said such amendment would require a massive political shift in order to gain the necessary support. It would probably be more plausible for every supporter to move to Australia instead.
Even if this did happen it might reduce crimes committed with a gun, but it will be unlikely to reduce violent crimes overall.
I have not tried it. But I suspect it is way easier to get a gun illegally in the US than it is in europe, if only for the fact that there are so many people from which one could be stolen.
Nope, it's trivial in just about every country to get an illegal gun because there's so many unstable countries right next door. That includes things like grenades, and fully-automatic weapons. In Canada, illegal guns are more likely to come from China then from the US. Why? Because the most common route when people try to smuggle weapons in is via either Windsor/Detroit or Port Huron. And border agents on both sides are generally pretty good at catching that in transit, and it helps that nearly all trucks either have pre-inspection and sealed or have a secondary inspection during the crossing. On the other hand, there's so much cargo entering/leaving out of Vancouver that only a fraction is ever inspected even if it has suspect labeling.
In the US? Getting your hands on an actual illegal gun(i.e. machine gun) is nearly impossible. Getting your hands on a stolen gun though? It's more difficult then 20 years to get one, but not impossible.
Om, nomnomnom...
Will the guards be armed with muskets like Chelsea Handler's bodyguards?