Employees Who Worked at YouTube Say Violent Threats From Volatile 'Creators' Have Been Going on For Years (businessinsider.com)

Anonymous readers share a report: YouTube managers had no way to predict Nasim Aghdam would go on a bloody rampage, but they had plenty of reasons to fear that someone like her might one day show up, say former employees. Aghdam was the 38-year-old, disgruntled YouTube video creator who arrived at the company's San Bruno, California, headquarters on April 3 and began blasting away with a 9mm handgun. She wounded three staffers before she killed herself. Police say leading up to the shooting Aghdam, who was from San Diego, believed YouTube sought to censor her and ruin her life.

This kind of violence is unprecedented in YouTube's 13-year-history, though Aghdam's anger and paranoia aren't unique among the millions of people who create and post videos to the site, according to five former YouTube employees. In exclusive interviews, they told Business Insider that going back to the service's earliest days, frustrated creators -- seething over one of YouTube's policy changes or the other -- have threatened staffers with violence. Typically the threats were delivered via email. At least once, a video creator confronted a YouTube employee face-to-face and promised he would "destroy" him.

Comments

narcissistic personality disorder

[Martin S.]

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder with a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. People affected by it often spend a lot of time thinking about achieving power or success, or about their appearance. They often take advantage of the people around them. The behavior typically begins by early adulthood, and occurs across a variety of social situations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[TigerPlish]

so... every politician, ever?

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[Lab Rat Jason]

So... exactly the kind of person YouTube encourages to become a "creator" as opposed to the other rif-raf that just occasionally uploads a video?

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[DickBreath]

For a second there I thought you were describing the president.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[jellomizer]

There is a degree Narcissism involved if you are going to be a full time content creator. It is a lot of work to do this full time, so stroking ones ego is a form of compensation that helps makes it worth it. This is the same as with many other performers or public facing people. The difference it YouTube is a medium where you don't need to deal the more level headed people who may say "No" or you have gone to far. Or just flat out fire you and retcon in a replacement character. They lack any humility factor. Then combine with the fact how the algorithm ranks videos, controversial/taboo/bold statements will get better views and ranks.

On my YouTube recommended list outside of my subscriptions I have claims such as...
Easiest way to remove a tree stump
Did Captain archer actually commit genocide?
Solving the Most DIFFICULT Lock Puzzle on the Planet!! - LEVEL 10

A lot of absolutes in these titles.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all of them. Many politicians don't have an excessive need for admiration. They do what they must in order to get votes, but that's it.

Don't get me wrong here....I agree that all politicians are evil. And that is a matter of logical necessity. The job attracts evil people, and evil people have and advantage over good people when trying to get the job, and even if a good person does get the job the subsequent need to compromise with evil people in order to get anything done has an unavoidable corrupting influence.

But not all politicians have this specific disorder. The varieties of evil are endless.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[sycodon]

Some politicians don't want admiration. They prefer to stay in the background and have control. They are the ones that want to tell you how to behave, what to drive, when you can drive it, what you should or should not eat, etc.

Maybe it's part of their control strategy since being stealthy when doing this shit is a requirement.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[cayenne8]

I still find it VERY interesting, that this story dropped off the face of the earth (ok, at least the mainstream news) so rapidly....especially since it hit a major company with such a public face, YouTube / Google.

I have to think it had something to do with the facts that this gun killing crime didn't fit with the parameters that the left considers more beneficial to their agenda to get rid of guns and enact more gun control.

I guess it was inconvenient that the shooter:

1. Was female

2. Was a foreigner, or at the very least, was not a white guy.

3. Was a handgun, and not a scary looking black semi-automtic rifle. Nope, a semi-automatic handgun just isn't as scary, so not wanting to press that in the news.

But still...people were killed, and yet....well, we had no marches, no politicians screaming "think of the children", and calling legal gun owners murderers, or trying to vilify the NRA (which by the way, is made up of and funded by gun owning US citizens, it isn't a faceless evil corporation).....

Funny isn't it? I think it was news worthy what...maybe 2 days tops?

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[Quirkz]

no politicians screaming "think of the children"

Maybe because no children were killed in this particular incident?

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[bws111]

Yep, same thing with the Maryland school shooting that happened a couple of weeks ago.

1. Handgun
2. Shooter had it illegally, so 'background checks' and 'age limits', etc would not help at all
3. Shooter taken out by armed security

That one disappeared REAL fast

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe because on average there's over 90 gun deaths in the US per day it's not particularly newsworthy (https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/#DailyDeaths)? If it didn't happen at Youtube, who would even care? There's no need to jump to conspiracy theory.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[Dare nMc]

This was a single death with a gun, only the shooter dead, practically a suicide. Their are 60 suicides by gun a day in the us, around 30 homicides a day with guns.

How loud and for how long do you expect the "liberals" to drag out each of these 90 deaths a day?

Honestly in a case like this, that doesn't fit the mold and results in a single death, their is little to gain by attempting to address it, and publicizing it makes repeats more likely. When you have 90 deaths a day by guns in the US, and less than 15% of them are by woman, even lower rates by foreigners, much more is to be gained by society to not focus on this unusual situation.

If anything I am a little surprised no news media focused on how California's laws, making it so much more difficult to get semi-automatics rifles and big clips... may have reduced the impact of this crime, could even have something to do with California being 42nd out of the 50 states in gun homicide rate. And how they have much better reporting of the mentally ill... already makes mass death situations like that one in Florida and one in Nevada less likely. They could have used this one to point out these things again, but maybe all the media are not all a bunch of liberals looking for any reason to vilify those on the right.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[quantaman]

Not all of them. Many politicians don't have an excessive need for admiration. They do what they must in order to get votes, but that's it.

Don't get me wrong here....I agree that all politicians are evil.

I disagree with this thinking, I agree that there's a disproportionate number of "evil" politicians, and a bunch more who went in good and were corrupted by the system. But I think there's a lot more who, despite being ambitious, are also genuinely trying to do what they think to be the right thing with integrity.

I find the "all politicians are evil" to be really counter-productive. It lets the bad ones get away with anything since they're all assumed to be evil anyways. And the good ones aren't rewarded for being good since people assume ulterior motives.

I think that's one of the things that got Trump elected, he was ridiculously corrupt and dishonest but a lot of people couldn't really register it because they already assumed all politicians to be completely corrupt and dishonest. If anything they found him more trustworthy because the corruption and lies were so obvious people didn't feel deceived and he seemed more honest.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[Ogive17]

Shooter killed himself. Did anyone other than the shooter die? I know he shot two others, not sure if they survived.

Maybe instead of it being covered up it just got overshadowed by worse events...

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[Anonymous Coward]

The Stupid Part

Funny isn't it? I think it was news worthy what...maybe 2 days tops?

That's so weird.. I thought I saw something about this shooting on Slashdot today. You might want to look harder. Maybe try using your reload button on the very page that you're reading right now, and go up to the top. There you should see Yet Another Fucking Story about a shooting.

The Dishonest Part

But still...people were killed, and yet....well, we had no marches, no politicians screaming "think of the children", and calling legal gun owners murderers, or trying to vilify the NRA (which by the way, is made up of and funded by gun owning US citizens, it isn't a faceless evil corporation).....

It's amazing that you'd think this would fool anyone. I have been getting fucking bombarded with anti-gun bitching non-stop for months now. And it doesn't fucking stop.

The only people who are going to be fooled by your outright lie, are people that are simply completely out-of-touch with the media. If they haven't seen what's in the media, then perhaps they'll take your word that it wasn't there, in spite of the nonstop barrage of anti-gun rhetoric. You just need them to not look. Good luck with that.

But everyone else knows that you're totally making this bullshit up out of thin air.

Which Is Better: Stupidity Or Dishonesty?

All I can think of are .. astronauts? Deep sea fishery workers? Who are these people that you're counting on being completely oblivious to the torrent of spam that is drenching all of us city-dwellers? Who is this lie made for? And then.. where are they going to hear your lie? You posted it in a story about the Youtube shooting! If they read it, you're found out immediately!

I recommend you switch to pure dishonestly without the stupidity. You'll fool more people that way. The stupidity weakens everything, whereas dishonesty can have its opportunities.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting as AC due to being long-time-reader, and probably my second post in 20 years. Your facts are off. Not that I see any connection between the Maryland shooting in St. Mary's and the Youtube shooting, but I can't help myself because you're wrong on the internet. There's an XKCD for that.

I live in the next County over and have been following this unusually closely just because it's local. So let's go:

1. Handgun. Yes. A Glock 9mm, I assume a Glock 19. If I'm not mistaken, such handguns are legally limited to a 10-round magazine in Maryland. I'm not certain because I haven't looked into owning a gun in this state. I'm a transplant from Virginia and am a gun owner. But my current circumstances preclude me from keeping a firearm of any sort in my home. I have seen no reports that the shooter had more than one magazine in possession, so that indicates a maximum possible load of 11 rounds.

2. Shooter had it illegally. Technically, yes. In the sense that a 14-year-old drives a parent's car illegally. He was not of legal age to purchase or own a firearm of any sort in the State of Maryland. The Glock in question was his father's, who I assume did own it legally. But he couldn't be bothered to secure it in a gun safe, it was subsequently acquired by the shooter, and here we are.

3. Shooter taken out by armed security. This is a false statement. The shooter shot his girlfriend (or perhaps recently ex-girlfriend). He then shot himself. The "armed security" you speak of was a school resource officer who happened to be unusually close by. The resource officer shot the shooter simultaneously. This was widely reported in the media as an example of good guys with guns ending bad guys with guns. Several days later the coroner's report came out and it stated that the shooter's fatal bullet was his own, not the resource officer's.

This was not a "school shooting" in the traditional sense. This was an incident of domestic violence. The people involved were high school age so it's reasonable to conjecture that any such domestic violence, involving guns or not, is likely to happen at school. Had they been ten years older it would have happened at home or at work. Had he been slightly less homicidal, he would have beaten her at school. Having been at Virginia Tech in April of 2007, please refrain from accusing me of splitting hairs. I know what a mass shooting at school looks like in some detail. This is not that.

From the available evidence that I've read (mostly from local, rural, moderately conservative-leaning media) there is no indication that the shooter intended to shoot anyone other than his girlfriend and himself. Since the coroner's report states that the fatal bullet was his own, the combination of these two facts yields the result that the resource officer's actions (actions I support, for the record) led to no difference in outcome.

Now the real conjecture comes. There's no evidence that I've read to substantiate the notion that this was in play here. But statistically, most domestic violence is a learned behaviour. Most domestic abusers are so because they saw a parent being a domestic abuser. Dollars to donuts, this kid saw that gun aimed by his father at his mother at least once. Mass shootings are perpetrated by someone completed different. Stephen Cho was deeply unhinged, for sure, but I very much doubt he saw one of his parents kill thirty-some unarmed civilians.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[SvnLyrBrto]

Nope. It's remained in the news, as the story has developed. The police released the body camera footage from their earlier encounter with her a few days ago... that made the Friday news. And just this morning, there was a segment on KCBS about possible possible security changes at company campuses as as result of the shooting. But hey... carry on... and don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your narrative.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[Maxo-Texas]

Well, if it had been a scary looking semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine, there would have logically been many more dead and she could have started fired effectively from up to 1800 feet away.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Yes. Jaelynn Willey passed away from her injuries: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/22/us/maryland-school-shooting-jaelynn-willey/index.html

2) The GP did not even once suggest any sort of cover-up. He simply stated that in his opinion the story "disappeared REAL fast." While "disappear" is open to interpretation, given the fact that I was able to find ample articles related to it (that were published on or shortly after the event), I am interpreting "disappeared" to mean "did not receive ongoing coverage like many other shootings."

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[MrKaos]

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder

I've been writing a book on this subject and the impact of the psychological abuse from NPD. One abusive parent is required and one fawning parent who feels guilty about the abuse and tries to compensate.

with a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration,

Also entitlement and imposing their emotional needs onto you via psychological manipulation.

and a lack of empathy.

I have to clear this bit up because it's important, especially if you don't want to become a victim. Empathy's traditional meaning is an awareness of other peoples feeling. Somehow, in the modern vernacular, it has been attached to compassion for other peoples feelings.

To be clear, narcissists do have empathy, however they way they use it to manipulate people better so they can secure narcissistic supply.

People affected by it often spend a lot of time thinking about achieving power or success, or about their appearance. They often take advantage of the people around them.

Thinking about it, but rarely achieving it. To be clear, narcissists are losers. They aren't talented enough at anything to be able to get what they want because they are so preoccupied manipulating people around them to get the emotional validation they seek.

This is the essence of narcissistic supply and everything they do is geared around how and what they have to do to manipulate people into interacting with them that way.

It's the narcissists sense of absolute superiority that makes them unable to submit to any discipline that would make them good any anything to generate those feelings in people in a genuine way. Everything about the narcissist is their false self and maintaining the perception of it.

The behavior typically manifests by early adulthood, and occurs across a variety of social situations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The correction was necessary because they, themselves were abused over time. If you are going to feel any compassion for a narcissist feel it for when they were a child from age 3-13 when their brains were still plastic and their abusive parent conditioned them to being abused and the fawning parent told them they were special. After this age the narcissist is beyond help because they don't think anything is wrong with them and over time they will drive their victims to complete emotional breakdowns remorselessly and then discard them callously.

You have nailed it that it is those people that would attack the Youtube staffers instead of being grateful they have a platform. I'm not qualified to make a diagnosis, however the traits are there. Youtube took their narcissistic supply away from them, caused them an un-excusable narcissistic injury, they felt entitled to retribution.

What I'll point out though is narcissists are conscious of getting into trouble so this person was highly likely to be slipping over to an anti-social personality disorder. It's likely they are diagnose-able with one of these conditions.

Re: narcissistic personality disorder

[Reverend Green]

Big Brother Google knows what's best for us proles.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[bugs2squash]

If you don't like that one there are plenty of others saying about the same thing. Some here for example.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[serviscope_minor]

Funny isn't it? I think it was news worthy what...maybe 2 days tops?

Hahaha yes, funny!

I mean it must be a liberal consipracy to do something. Of course if it was in the news for longer it would be a liberal conspiracy to take your guns. Either way it must be a liberal conspiracy.

Re: narcissistic personality disorder

[houghi]

Not sure if you are stupid or a troll. The bews media works as follows: they need as many people to watch it so sell these eyes to advertisers. Thus story is not interesting enough to do that. This is just another killing with a gun. Many of them you will hear nothibg about.

The reason you did here was brcause it was Youtube.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[rtb61]

It's not a type of person, it is down to numbers, the more content creators the more percentages will catch up with you. To be crude if 1% of the general population are nut burgers, than 1% of YouTube content creators are likely to be nut burgers. Now Youtube have been really, really naughty, playing all sorts of silly, propagandistic and society manipulative games (some really disgusting stuff right to to cooking search results, although after having pointed out, your could type the exact title of the video and not get it first but get establishment propaganda videos, they stopped for the time being). Basically as far as the nut burgers is concered, YouTube has been most emphatically poking them. Pokey, pokey, pokey, again and again and again, and it is likely to set them off, very likely. Especially in the US where mental health service have been cut right down with greed and meh they only kill other poor people attitude we can afford real security. It is really surprising there have not been more but there always has to be a first and from there on in copycats. I would strongly suggest that google stop poking nut burger content creators, a really dumb and incidentally psychologically damaging thing to do, it can really fuck with already fucked heads and it is pretty cruel (so not just narcissist content creators at Youtube but also narcissists and psychopaths working at and running Alphabet https://duckduckgo.com/?q=alph... and controlling Google and Youtube, utterly insensitive to the harm they cause). So rather than go nuts, just stop using google search and pass it along, the more people that do it, the less evil (Google's own choice or words originally) they will become.

Re: narcissistic personality disorder

[Opportunist]

If I was him, I wouldn't want the average person (i.e. user of FB) with access to automatic rifles either.

He knows why...

Re: narcissistic personality disorder

[ganjadude]

yeah, no. words matter. use the correct ones.

Re: narcissistic personality disorder

[MrKaos]

That's pretty good about describing the NPD behavior.

But you are wrong about it developing because of abusive parents, and maybe codependent parent.

There is little doubt these are personality disorders. If this sounds controversial to you it's because you are probably intellectualizing and making excuses for your abuser. I think you may need to stop doing that so you aren't harming yourself and the people around you - especially your children.

Try to consider the relationship you had with your parents and their relationship with each other and see how your relationship with your wife compares.

It's genetic, organic, developmental; because of their lack of empathy and consequently missing theory of mind, modeling behavior doesn't work.

There is no genetic test for NPD, BPD or CPTSD. All of them are behavioral responses developed over time from exposure to abusive parents. It's pretty common, unfortunately.

Also you need to describe comorbid BPD, borderline personality disorder. Some people have both.

Both of my children are BPD, one also slightly NPD.

Well you have an abuser and a co-dependent who was abused as a child because it isn't genetic and it doesn't materialize from thin air. The psychological injuries a child suffers from having personal boundaries broken causes perceptual problems in the psyche that attracts them to that abuse. If that sounds fucked up - it's because it is fucked up.

It's a cycle our society needs to break.

Their mother is full blown BPD NPD.

That is a statement neither of us is qualified to utter. However if your claim is true the you are enabling her abuse on the children and yourself and it is your responsibility to put their welfare above your issues and your happiness. It is inevitable that you will eventually be discarded by the NPD and the reason you stay is because you have suffered an abuse in your childhood that make you to frightened to leave - so you stay in an abusive situation.

You need to face your own emotional issues with your parents if you are to have any hope of saving your children because she will turn them against you and they too will become NPD.

I know it sounds hurtful and I could bullshit to you or not respond however that would be cruel and this is something you need to hear. It will be confronting for you however YOU need to do something because no one else can and it is your obligation to do so. That something is you listening to that little voice in your head that is trying to tell you what is wrong, instead of your flawed instinct, and face it. Go to a counselor or a psychiatrist and sort yourself out so that we have two less NPDs in the world.

Don't expose her either or she will destroy all of you.

Folks if you encounter anyone like this in real life, run away, as far away as you can get.

That is good advice that you should consider taking very carefully. A female NPD will tear a male co-dependent apart with children and you are in a very precarious position, be very careful. That's not to say a male or female is worse than the other just that they use different tactics.

I heard of a case where a NPD fought his wife for four years to get custody of their 12 year old daughter and when he finally got those privileges he took his daughter home and kicked her skull in. Killed his daughter, put himself in jail just so he could take revenge on his wife for leaving.

Take your situation seriously.

Re: narcissistic personality disorder

[MrKaos]

Most likely, your children's mental problems are in YOUR head.

Yes, but he didn't ask to be abused either so just go easy on the poor bastard because he is in a bad situation.

Re: narcissistic personality disorder

[cayenne8]

If I was him, I wouldn't want the average person (i.e. user of FB) with access to automatic rifles either.

MOST Americans do not have access to automatic rifles.....they are VERY rare, and aside form having to have very special approvals and tax stamps from the BATF, you have to have the $$ to buy the limited supply of them. Cheapest goes for about $10K these days I believe.

Re: narcissistic personality disorder

[Opportunist]

Then take a handgun for all I care. The important bit isn't the gun you use.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[fropenn]

Shootings with a handgun where 3 people are injured happen all the time. It's not possible to keep all of these sorts of shootings in the news all the time. No conspiracy or political motivation here. It's just that people have moved on to the next shooting / bridge collapse / water-skiing squirrel / etc.

Re: narcissistic personality disorder

[stealth_finger]

If you didn't would the armed security be necessary? And who was the one who put all their information into his site?

Re: narcissistic personality disorder

[anegg]

You donÃ(TM)t get to decide what words everyone must use. In English, there are many synonyms. Neither term is more valid or correct than the other. You donÃ(TM)t have to call it a clip, I wonÃ(TM)t presume to attempt to control your word choice. Feel free to call a clip a magazine, your choice.

A clip is a piece of metal that holds several rounds of ammunition together so that they can be fed into a firearm more easily as a unit (i.e., the rounds are "clipped" together). Clips are typically disposable, although they can be re-used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_(firearms)

A magazine is a container for multiple rounds of ammunition. In portable firearms, they are typically removable and designed for re-use.

These are not synonymous terms, but the term "clip" is often used incorrectly by those not familiar with the technology used in firearms. Slashdot being a technology website, the difference should be salient in my opinion.

Re: narcissistic personality disorder

[stealth_finger]

Pretty sure any firearm can be deadly. Same thing with rocks, or steel bats, or cars, or fast food, or cell phones? I can keep listing shit if you want.

Yes but how many of those things are designed to be specifically and only deadly? Firearms. How many things can be used as an improvised weapon? Basically anything.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[thegarbz]

But still...people were killed, and yet....well, we had no marches

This is fucking America. People shoot each other on a daily basis. It seems to be part of your way of life. The only time it matters if it takes the form of the government doing the shooting, or some children being the ones shot at.

Even the international media is starting to take a view of: Mass shooting in America ... yeah put it as a footnote at the end of the news, there's a football match to cover first.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[pnutjam]

Your an AC at +5, so I won't moderate. However I will say "THANK YOU!", for taking the time to correct bullshit on the internet.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[anegg]

If anything I am a little surprised no news media focused on how California's laws, making it so much more difficult to get semi-automatics rifles and big clips... may have reduced the impact of this crime, could even have something to do with California being 42nd out of the 50 states in gun homicide rate.

Semi-automatic rifles are rarely used in crime, although their has been a recent spate of well-publicized incidents involving semi-automatic rifles. I'll cite a Huffington Post article to avoid accusations of bias https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/assault-weapons-deaths_us_5763109de4b015db1bc8c123. It seems unlikely that California's laws restricting access to such firearms are responsible for the claimed ranking.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[Applehu Akbar]

This woman not fitting this profile is one factor in the disappearance of this story, but it comes served with a side of online companies running scared that their flippant, no-way-to-reach-a-human consumer policies are coming back to bite them.

This woman being Iranian had nothing to do with her actions. Her profile was the common variety of crazy bitch, and California has an uncommon number of those.

Re: narcissistic personality disorder

[Dare nMc]

My post would have more meaning had I used magazine instead, and that is clearly what I meant. But AC is wrong in his "Clips are for chips" Many rifles use clips, but many more use magazines (and some use clips to load magazines,) they do mean different things, but both hold bullets for rifles, and the number of bullets each is allowed to hold is limited in CA.

Matter of fact, their is a real nice "side-charging stripper clip" for AR-15's that get around CA's laws on removable magazines, that uses a clip to replace much of the functionality of a mag.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[DickBreath]

I always thought he was. But there are a lot of special snowflake mods who cannot abide any slight criticism of the dear leader.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[Dare nMc]

You're 100% correct, and I agree, and the way my post was worded it does sound like I was saying otherwise.

However California's laws on firearms in general almost definitely reduce firearms deaths, because they reduce the ownership rate to one of the lowest (outside of NY) in the country. Their is no doubt in my mind, reduced access to firearms reduces not only the gun suicide rate, but the overall suicide rate. The reduced access to firearms (mostly hand guns) in CA obviously does have some affect on numbers of firearms homicides (but possibly little or no impact on overall homicide rates.)

However in this case, it would have been very bad for her to have had a AR-15 with a big clip (likely only slightly worse than has she had any other rifle) in the same situation. I obviously cannot say for certain more people would have died... But because this type of scenario comes up less than once a week in the entire country, I agree it isn't a meaningful overall statistic toward the overall safety of Californians. A semi auto AR-15 would have been an ideal weapon for a small girl in a large open campus to cause maximum impact. Luckily that didn't happen.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[max99ted]

You should post more often.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[Cajun Hell]

I think it's somewhat uninteresting that the media is still talking about this shooting. The reason they're doing it, is that approximately half the people in media favor gun control, and they know everyone has heard of this one, so they feel it (as a well-known reference) strengthens their arguments that something has to be done.

I'm not sure why you think anybody gives a fuck about gender, nationality, and gun type. The anti-gun people I hear from all the time, don't seem to care a lot about those things (at least they don't mention them in their .. what did you call it? their "parameters"). They care about guns, and any kind of gun frightens them. If you're expecting the advocacy to be more .. specialized, then you should try some more racist media. But beware that you might find less anti-gun advocacy among racists.

If you think this story didn't get covered, I have to conclude you intentionally filtered it out. And if you think anti-gun people have a reason to not cover it, then you must have forgotten that she used a gun and shot other people.

It's uninteresting because it's mundane and exactly what you'd expect. It takes deviations and new information, for things to be interesting.

we had no marches, no politicians screaming "think of the children", and calling legal gun owners murderers, or trying to vilify the NRA

Wow. When I said above that you intentionally filtered this story out, what I meant is that you obviously moved to another planet and haven't been in contact with Earth for the last six months, so you've filtered out all the stories. The stuff you mention has been ubiquitous. It's almost as though you're reading the headlines and then wondering why nobody is talking about that stuff. I suppose you think nobody is talking about the latest air disaster or the president's lawyer, too.

I think it was news worthy what...maybe 2 days tops?

That sounds about right, but I guess there weren't enough interesting shootings so that's why there's been a story about this nearly every single day for the last two weeks. (I quickly found a story every day except the 8th and 10th.)

If you're tired of this one, then go shoot someone in some kind of new and interesting way (novel motives count!), so that you can earn the headlines for a while. You can be a media star!

Or just bear it. People will simultaneously grow bored of the Youtube shooter story, while newer shootings happen. (My town has already had some pretty sick ones that most of the locals are chatty about nowdays.) It will fade by degrees over time, overwhelmed by sheer numbers. I'm not saying the stories will ever completely stop (fuck, I think a couple years ago even John Hinkley (!) was in the news) but it will gradually decay. Hang in there.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[david_thornley]

It also didn't happen in a school or church or somewhere like that. Few people were injured. One was critical, but didn't die while the news was still going on. The shooter killed herself, and for some time that was the only death. Politicians didn't yell "Think of the children!" because no children were involved.

Besides, have you ever looked at homicide statistics? People get killed by guns all the time. It isn't remarkable.

Now, if you compare it to someone who walked into a school and killed seventeen students and wounded about as many more, guess which gets the media coverage?

Re: narcissistic personality disorder

[HornWumpus]

I own a M1 rifle, you insensitive clod.

Re: narcissistic personality disorder

[HornWumpus]

A stripper clip is not the same thing as a clip.

Clips were pretty much M1 rifle only. Stripper clips are what you discribe.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[HornWumpus]

She wasn't skilled enough to fire her pistol at it's effective range, thank dog. There is no reason to think she was any better with a rifle.

Clearly a 223 does more damage, but she wasn't exactly effective.

Re: narcissistic personality disorder

[Rakarra]

I search for Youtube Shooter on google.com and news.google.com and I get plenty of results. Are they "suppressing" search results?

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[Rakarra]

People that post on youtube *are* crazy. Crazy should be expected from them.

Some people are, sure. Plenty are not. But, you know, shock sells. Crazy folks can get a lot of hits because people point and say "haha, check out the crazy guy!"

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[orin]

Are you interested in beta readers? If so ping me orin@lspace.org

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[CrimsonAvenger]

Their is no doubt in my mind, reduced access to firearms reduces not only the gun suicide rate, but the overall suicide rate.

And yet, CA's overall suicide rate is (slightly) higher than the national average. Which would suggest that reduced access to firearms doesn't reduce suicide rate....

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[Maxo-Texas]

Well, the guy in Las Vegas made up for it.

850 wounded, 58 dead.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[Dare nMc]

> CA's overall suicide rate is (slightly) higher than the national average. Which would suggest that reduced access to firearms doesn't reduce suicide rate..

Or you could be wrong, Between 1999 and 2009, the suicide rate in California averaged around 9.4 per 100,000 individuals; national averages are around 11.1 per 100,000.

or https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previ...

I wonder what happens when we look at the states with the highest Suicide rate, wonder where they lie in Gun ownership:

1 - Wyoming 5th highest ownership
2- Alaska #1 highest ownership
3- Montana 6th highest
4- NewMexico 7th highest.

Honestly, them being rural states likely contributes more to the suicide rate. California Rural areas are high as well, Guns are obviously not the cause of suicides. But they contribute to the overall success rate.

I should say, I am not in favor of CA gun laws. I definitely couldn't legally move to CA, without selling a few items. I would like to see a more nationalized commonality in requirements in training and requirements on securing firearms from miners and reduced access by those with history of violence or mental issues.

Re:narcissistic personality disorder

[MrKaos]

I think you are in a different situation, BPD and that your wife *may* have developed NPD defenses, I cannot say for sure. The people who do this to other people are sick in a way that uses your compassion for them against you, so you have to be careful.

If you are interested contact me on a random, unrelated post of mine to protect your pseudonym, I'll give you some details and you can decide what you want to do.

And?

[fredgiblet]

Is this surprising at all? I'm sure that random death threats have been getting lobbed around since antiquity. It's just easier now.

Re:And?

[TheMeuge]

Exactly. When your business involves interacting (even digitally) with millions of people, it would be inconceivable for you NOT to encounter some people who are nuts.

Re:And?

[AmiMoJo]

I've never had anything I felt was a serious death threat in my life. Even on the internet. And I'm Amimojo.

Re:And?

[Opportunist]

Neither have I. I have been shot at, but he never threatened me first, he only fired his gun.

News at eleven

[Gaygirlie]

Unstable people with real need for professional help sometimes end up harming themselves and other people when given easy access to guns.

Re:News at eleven

[Train0987]

An inanimate object didn't kill those people, a crazy person did. If guns didn't exist she would have used something else. That's what crazy people do.

But please, keep blaming the inanimate object.

Re:News at eleven

[OrangeTide]

It's easier to get a gun than build a bomb, but both are within reach of an average human being. If someone is that bent on planning a violent rampage I don't think the lack of access to guns is going to stop them. I question if a complete ban on all guns in the US would even slow them down or reduce the frequency of occurrence.

But I also think zero guns, if that were even possible, would very much reduce our homicide rate. You know, the normal murders were people kill people that they know and make up the bulk of the homicide statistics. As opposed to these weird lone gunman cases that make it into the news because they are exceptional. Which I categorize more as a societal and behavioral problem rather than strictly as a gun problem.

Re:News at eleven

[hipp5]

Yeahhhh, except guns are designed for the efficient killing of people. Sure, you can kill people with a shot glass full of water, but it's not like it's going to be easy. There are very few efficient killing machines to which we give people access, other than guns.

Re:News at eleven

[Train0987]

A car can kill more people than a gun can. Faster too.

Re:News at eleven

[Train0987]

They aren't even hiding it any more.

Re:News at eleven

[Train0987]

Except you can't order a gun online and have it shipped to you. Why tell such outright lies?

Re:News at eleven

[ArylAkamov]

Cool strawmen brah

Re:News at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the most stupid remark I have seen so far.
These things ARE designed to injure or kill people.
Putting your head in the sand don't change that.

Re:News at eleven

[pr0fessor]

It's not wise to bring a gun to an SUV fight...

Re:News at eleven

[gnick]

If guns didn't exist she would have used something else.

You sound very convinced of that. I'm not. How do you know what she would have done without a gun? The gun didn't cause her to become violent, but it made it easier. And the "something else" she might have used would likely have been less effective than a pistol.

Re:News at eleven

[danbert8]

Well it wasn't very well designed then considering in this circumstance it only killed one person and that was the operator...

Re:News at eleven

[danbert8]

I dunno, the pistol she did use only caused a single fatality and that was of the operator of the gun. Probably would have been easier to just drive a car through the front door...

Re:News at eleven

[DickBreath]

Usually not with the surprise of a gun.
I would challenge that a car can kill people faster, unless it is in a crowd of people with nowhere to get out of the way.
People usually have some possibility of being able to get out of the way of a car.
Car attacks are unlikely inside of a secured building such as YouTube.
Also unlikely inside a school or workplace.
A car attack is very different than a concealed gun attack in an enclosed area, or a sniper attack such as in Las Vegas.
Depending upon how effectively they can get out of the way, or jump onto the car, people might have a significant chance of of escaping with only injuries.

Re:News at eleven

[DickBreath]

See my comment on car attack directly above yours.

Re:News at eleven

[Shotgun]

Which Walmart has guns on sale for $50?! I'll camp out for THAT!!

Re:News at eleven

[Shotgun]

It's easier to get a gun than build a bomb,

Only for people that lack imagination. That empty gas can you just filled your lawn mower with.....excellent bomb.

Re:News at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

This like the comment above show a shocking level of self delusion and purposeful ignorance. Guns are designed to kill things (sometimes people). Guns are the the most recent design of a very long evolution of tools of war and tools of hunting, designed to kill your target. To deny this is to ignore the very long history of firearms.

Re:News at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

And what is the purpose propelling that object at great velocity? An automobile propels people at great velocity with the intent of moving them from point A to point B quickly - what is the purpose of propelling a small amount of lead from point A to point B, other than to do as much damage as possible to point B with as little effort as possible?

Re:News at eleven

[Locke2005]

Georgia's murder rate is much higher than New York's, if we're talking states. Alaska is #1 for gun deaths, Hawaii #50, New York #48.

Re:News at eleven

[AlanBDee]

Guns don't kill people, bat shit crazy people with easy access to guns do. I'm in support of stronger gun regulation but in this case I don't think it would have made a difference. She only managed to wound other people because she used a 9mm pistol. Had she used an assault rifle I'm sure the number of deaths would have been much higher.

Re:News at eleven

[GameboyRMH]

Well guns are downright shitty at propelling objects at great velocities. A particle accelerator, low-bypass afterburning turbofan, or rocket engine would do far better jobs, depending on the size of the object and how long you want it to go fast. So why the fuck are people using guns for propelling their objects? They only apply thrust/acceleration for a tiny fraction of a second to very specific small objects and the top speeds are garbage.

But the gun makes perfect sense as a purpose-built deadly weapon, isn't that odd? The projectile is ideally sized for killing people and smaller animals, the range makes sense for use by a human, the speed is decent, it's as if that was its intended purpose throughout history!

Cars on the other hand are downright shitty weapons. They're designed, to the greatest practical extent, not to kill. They tend to break on impact. Newer ones will stop by themselves if you attempt to drive them into a person or vehicle. You have to attack a dense crowd of people with a vehicle the size of a small house to cause deaths in the same league as a gun could.

Re:News at eleven

[cayenne8]

Unstable people with real need for professional help sometimes end up harming themselves and other people when given easy access to guns.

If only they would just do themselves before harming others, then who cares?

And, if they didn't have a gun, they'd do it some other way.....like you said, they are unstable.

Re:News at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

Georgia's murder rate is much higher than New York's, if we're talking states. Alaska is #1 for gun deaths, Hawaii #50, New York #48.

Nice sleight of hand there - going from murder rates to gun deaths. Did you hope that would go unnoticed? If so, you failed.

Care to try tossing in the murder rates in Maryland - that gets dominated by one large city in a relatively small state?

Of course not, because that would all but force you to address the elephant in the room - WHO is engaging in violent behavior.

And addressing the WHO is doing the murdering is something gun-grabbers really don't want to look at.

And yeah, it's gun-grabbers.

Because that's the real goal: repeal the 2nd Amendment and take away people's guns.

And when the guns are gone, you'll be coming for knives. Just like London is already doing.

And despite doing all that, London now has a higher murder rate than New York.

Re:News at eleven

[AmiMoJo]

An object that just happens to be perfectly shaped for penetrating the human body and causing fatal injuries.

Re:News at eleven

[Rockoon]

The Walmart in Democrat fantasy land, the same land where FBI background checks dont exist.

Re:News at eleven

[cayenne8]

While crazy people might kill people using various means, guns enables them to kill a lot more of them, more quickly, while making it much more difficult for law enforcement to respond.

So, you are implying that the VAST MAJORITY of the public, the law abiding citizen, must therefore be forced to the rights, and privileges of the lowest common denominator?

I know that the many, many guns and store of ammo have yet to harm anyone, and barring someone breaking in and threatening my life, or doing the same while out and carry conceal.....I have no reason to believe they ever will harm someone else.

But since there are a few whackos that will go off and use a gun....we should keep all people from easily and legally owning and using firearms, eh?

Re:News at eleven

[cayenne8]

...or you just buy a gun and bullets for $50 at Walmart (next-day shipping when ordering online!).

Ok, PLEASE...point out to me the gun and ammo you can buy for $50 at Walmart first.

And next, you cannot buy a gun online and have it shipped directly to you at home.

If you buy online, you have to have it shipped to a FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee)......where when you show up to claim the firearm, you have to fill out a form and go through the usual background check....which you have to pass first.

Please, get your facts together before you start trying to argue and mislead people.

Re:News at eleven

[cayenne8]

If you're only interested in assigning the barest of distinctions between guns and automobiles, should we stop requiring any barriers to using a car? No more licenses or insurance?

You can own a car without a license or insurance, as long as you don't drive it on public roads.

I do the same with my guns, I do not take them out in public and use them, I only use them in designated, private areas (gun range, or friend's who have land outside of city limits where it is perfectly legal to discharge weapons).

So, no need to have insurance or license for the possession or use of a gun on private property either.

Re:News at eleven

[Solandri]

If you look at the deadliest terrorist attacks, they're mostly bombings of one sort or another. So no, guns aren't the most efficient way to kill people. If your intent is to kill a lot of people, bombs are empircally much more effective. And as Oklahoma City showed, you can make a bomb out of easily accessible chemicals (fertilizer in that case).

Given 9/11 and the truck attacks in Nice and Berlin, you could also make an argument that simply steering vehicles into people is more effective too. Good luck trying to prohibit people from getting access to vehicles.

Re:News at eleven

[iTrawl]

That one time a guy drove a car over a load of pedestrians from the window of his hotel room... I don't remember that.

Re:News at eleven

[cayenne8]

Had she used an assault rifle I'm sure the number of deaths would have been much higher.

Hmm..I don't think you mean what you think you mean.

It is VERY difficult to get an assault weapon as a private citizen of the US. They just do not sell fully automatic weapons very freely in the US. You have to first find someone that has one that was manufactured prior to 1986, and willing to sell it AND...well, for the cheapest one, you'd better have $10K or more.

And then you have to fill out the BATF paperwork pay the $200 tax stamp and wait...usually at LEAST 6+ months for it to clear.

Now, if you were talking about someone using a semi-automatic rifle, then yes, probably more damage. But do keep in mind, that there are much more powerful weapons than the AR-15 I'm guessing you are alluding to....and even others that are semi-auto, that shoot the exact same rounds as the AR, but aren't black and scary looking.....just as deadly, but not "scary" looking.

I'm been a little sarcastic here, but really....there are a LOT of semi automatic handguns and rifles out there, but people seem to think there is something special or magic about the AR platform and that just isn't true. Hell, that thing is really nothing more than a glorified .22 caliber weapon. Its basically just a .22 bottlenecked onto a bit larger cartridge, but it isn't a particularly powerful round.

There's much more powerful and damaging weapons, but this one get picked on due to being so popular, but if you ban it, you're really just banning all semi-auto weapons eventually.....

Re:News at eleven

[cayenne8]

US has more firearm deaths than the entire middle east, combined, does in a year.

Well, let's make those numbers a bit more meaningful, ok?

The problem is gun violence....people killing other people, right'?

So, let's take out the suicides from the US numbers, and then, well...compare the gun violent deaths against the middle east apples to apples and they aren't even close, the US isn't that bad.

You take out the suicides....and the numbers of gun violent related deaths are less than automobile deaths.

You refine the numbers a bit more, to take out the gang related deaths, and then well, you just don't see a problem really.

And countries that seized guns from their citizens...well, other modes of killing rose. Look at London...they have more murders than NYC....and now, it appears, the powers that be there, are looking into more restrictive knife laws.

Yep, the criminals still have advantages, and the law abiding populace can't really defend themselves.

But I guess that's ok for you, eh?

Re:News at eleven

[stephanruby]

In this particular case, I agree. She could have easily used a large knife or a car to inflict the same damage.

Also, I don't like blaming inanimate objects either. In the case of the Las Vegas shooter for instance, where 59 people were killed and 527 injured, I don't blame the 47 guns he owned, nor do I blame the 23 guns he had in his hotel room. In that case, I blame the shooter and also our Federal government for not placing a reasonable limit on the ownership of guns on someone who was not a gun shop owner and someone who was not even an active member of a militia or of a military reserve.

Re:News at eleven

[bws111]

Or, you can go to the gas station, buy $1 worth of gas, and kill 87 people by starting a fire.

Re:News at eleven

[ArchieBunker]

Shooting is considered a sport and even part of the olympics. My guns haven't killed anyone but oddly enough Ted Kennedy's car has a body count.

Re:News at eleven

[AlanBDee]

The reason I didn't specifically say AR-15 is because there those other rifles you talk about. Now the exact definition of an "Assault Rifle" is unclear but this is the first time I've ever heard anyone try to argue that it had to be a fully automatic rifle. Even if you had a fully automatic rifle the best thing you can do is switch it to semi-auto to improve your accuracy; however I've never actually shot a fully automatic rifle so I can't speak from personal experience on this one.

This is also the first time I've heard someone try to argue that a 5.56mm is anything like a .22. That's like saying the Ford Mustang is just a glorified Ford Pinto. Now the difference between a .22 and 5.56 might be comparable that to a 5.56 and a .50 but now we're comparing a Ford Mustang to a Fort GT.

Nonetheless, the point that I want to make is that though I am for reasonable gun regulation, that regulation would not have stopped this person.

Re:News at eleven

[CanHasDIY]

A crazy person armed with knives can probably be taken down by several able bodied people that don't have any weapons other than ordinary objects. Chairs. Pillows / matresses. I'll leave it to your imagination.

Right - that's why London has a lower murder rate than Ft. Worth, TX.

Oh, wait...

Re:News at eleven

[ArchieBunker]

I use guns to punch small holes in paper targets for recreation and sport along with the vast majority of other gun owners. Why should my guns be taken away because crazy people are using them? Punish the person not the instrument.

Re:News at eleven

[CanHasDIY]

Thank god for that, too - can you imagine how many more casualties there would have been if he had driven a fully-loaded gasoline tanker at speed through the crowd?

Re:News at eleven

[CanHasDIY]

While crazy people might kill people using various means, guns enables them to kill a lot more of them, more quickly, while making it much more difficult for law enforcement to respond.

So, you are implying that the VAST MAJORITY of the public, the law abiding citizen, must therefore be forced to the rights, and privileges of the lowest common denominator?

Right? I mean, if we're going to play the "we must ban X because criminals might use it" game, then I would argue that free speech should be the first right taken away from us - after all, how many people do we credit Adolf Hitler with killing, using nothing but his words?

Seriously - every argument I've heard against the 2nd is equally valid against the 1st (which is to say, not valid at all).

Re:News at eleven

[quantaman]

An inanimate object didn't kill those people, a crazy person did. If guns didn't exist she would have used something else. That's what crazy people do.

But please, keep blaming the inanimate object.

Sure if she were completely rational she could have found a way of killing people that was roughly as effective.

As could have all the school shooters, abusive spouses, unstable young men, and other perpetrators of gun violence. But they generally don't.

Because their objective isn't specifically to kill people, instead they're obsessed with that specific narrative of going in there with a gun because a gun carries a very heavy cultural legacy of being a tool for taking human lives.

Note, this explains why terrorists have started using cars and bombs while random nutjobs haven't. The terrorist is actually just trying to take lives and cause damage so they're happy to change methods. The random nutjobs want something that can only be delivered with a gun.

Re:News at eleven

[Dare nMc]

I believe he is referencing the Oklahoma City bombing Twice the number of deaths as the Las Vegas shooting, and he drove away safely after.

Re:News at eleven

[gnick]

Plenty of examples where individuals use knives, cars, explosives, poison, strangulation, pushing someone over a cliff... The effectiveness of the tool used is meaningless.

Meaningless? You think we would have had the same headline if she'd gone into YouTube and started strangling people?

Re:News at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

Murder rate in Ft, Worth is 0.08 per 1000, in London, 0.02 per 1000.

Re: News at eleven

[kenh]

Car attacks are unlikely inside of a secured building such as YouTube.

But if you pull the fire alarm your victims will all come out and congregate in the parking lot in departmental clusters for your convenience.

Re:News at eleven

[AlanBDee]

That actually make my analogy more accurate; a ford mustang is only slightly larger then a ford pinto.

According to Websters

: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

https://www.merriam-webster.co...

However, I will argue that the exact definition should be far more specific. You are also right that "reasonable" gun regulation means a lot of things to a lot of people. In general I think guns like the AR-15 should not be so easily available but still available to "qualified" people. For an example of qualified, see what it takes to own any gun in Australia. I think it should be that hard to own high power, semi automatic rifles. But that shouldn't apply to shotguns, pistols, or your typical bolt action hunting rifle. In other words, I don't want hunters to be affected. I don't want people who want to protect their family with a pistol to be affected.

People are dying so that other people can collect guns and target shoot. That seems silly to me.

Re:News at eleven

[cascadingstylesheet]

Yeahhhh, except guns are designed for the efficient killing of people. Sure, you can kill people with a shot glass full of water, but it's not like it's going to be easy. There are very few efficient killing machines to which we give people access, other than guns.

Nobody shot up the Walnut Grove schoolhouse, despite approximately every teenager there having access to guns.

Something's changed, but it's not the access to guns.

Re: News at eleven

[martinX]

... congregate in the parking lot in departmental clusters for your convenience.

That sounds like you've put some serious thought into this.

"Ah, there you are HR Department. Smythe must be in that group somewhere..."

Re:News at eleven

[Known Nutter]

empircally - you're using that word, and I do not think it means what you think it means nor do you appear to know how to spell it.

fyi only.

Re:News at eleven

[theadamtron]

Don't be ridiculous. How many mass stabbings do you see? Or mass baseball bat beatings? Its alot easier to kill a person with a gun than it is with anything else.

Re: News at eleven

[Reverend Green]

Crazy people sometimes act crazy. Oh noez! Quick, disarm the commoners!!

Re:News at eleven

[goose-incarnated]

Georgia's murder rate is much higher than New York's, if we're talking states. Alaska is #1 for gun deaths, Hawaii #50, New York #48.

There is only one reason to use "gun deaths" instead of "murder": intellectual dishonesty.

Seriously, you have to lie to yourself to make your argument work. Do you really think you have a sound argument if you have to lie to yourself?

Re: News at eleven

[dunkelfalke]

Okay, the gist of it is: let us take gun deaths, discard all the gun deaths and we are fine.
You really should go easy on the booze.

Re: News at eleven

[dunkelfalke]

An assault rifle is a select fire rifle chambered for an intermediate cartridge. That is one of the better definitions.

Re:News at eleven

[serviscope_minor]

If you look at the deadliest terrorist attacks, they're mostly bombings of one sort or another.

Well, maybe we should ban people from buying bombs.

Oh wait we already do, this makes them hard to get hold of and many of them end up as duds because making bombs effectively is actually quite hard. There's huge selection bias in that you only hear about the successful ones.

Good luck trying to prohibit people from getting access to vehicles.

Vehicles have an incredibly important and useful primary purpose which isn't to do with killing people. Removing vehicles from a conutry would have a vast negative impact day to day on almost every aspect of life for the majority of the population.

So yes totally equivalent to guns by reason of being completely the same.

Re:News at eleven

[serviscope_minor]

It's easier to get a gun than build a bomb, but both are within reach of an average human being.

I doubt the latter. Making effective bombs requires some degree of specialist skill. I don't think the average person could reliably build a bomb.

Re: News at eleven

[Undead Waffle]

Or you could acknowledge the realities of why those deaths are happening. Gun control advocates love throwing these numbers around to support gun bans but don't seem to care why so many people are joining gangs and killing each other. As if a gun ban would lead to group hugs instead of gang violence. And including statistics with suicides is misleading because suicides still happen without guns (see Japan and South Korea). In fact looking at guns in isolation is misleading.

Here's a fun fact:
Countries that ban guns see an increase in home invasion robberies while the person is home. The rate in the UK is around 45%, compared to about 10% in the US.

Re:News at eleven

[Opportunist]

You haven't been paying attention to the recent terrorist attacks, mainly in Europe where getting a gun is pretty hard but getting a car is surprisingly easy, have you?

Re:News at eleven

[Opportunist]

There's plenty of them on any airport. Just shop around for the ones with the crappiest security.

Re:News at eleven

[ganjadude]

no, you arent paying attention. the left is saying "we dont want to take all your guns away, just 98% of them (semi automatic)

Re: News at eleven

[dunkelfalke]

Here is another fun fact:
there are more home invasions in the USA in a year than in the UK in half a century. Despite the firearms.

Re:News at eleven

[cayenne8]

I don't want people who want to protect their family with a pistol to be affected.

Err...what's wrong with protecting your family with a semi-auto rifle?

An AR in short configuration, especially with a suppressor on it, makes a Jim Dandy home protection weapon.

These days more and more home invasions are happening with 2-4 or so perps.....frankly, I would prefers more capacity than 10-15 rounds in a handheld gun under stress and pressure....a AR or the like is much easier to control and place on target in such a situation.

Re: News at eleven

[cayenne8]

The poster above you seems to disagree with your numbers of UK vs US home invasions:

Countries that ban guns see an increase in home invasion robberies while the person is home. The rate in the UK is around 45%, compared to about 10% in the US.

Re:News at eleven

[thegarbz]

If guns didn't exist she would have used something else.

Indeed I see this as an argument all the time, but it has the opposite effect you think. Now when you get angry at this post I would greatly prefer you to come at me with a knife rather than cowardly taking my life from across the room.

Re:News at eleven

[Applehu Akbar]

I believe an airplane currently holds the record for most people and most people per second killed in a terrorist attack.

An airplane also comes in second in the count of people killed in one suicide.

Re:News at eleven

[david_thornley]

Depends on what you mean by a terrorist attack. If it means an attack at least partly intended to terrify, the record for a single attacking vehicle belongs to the Enola Gay.

Re:News at eleven

[david_thornley]

In other words, remove all the people you don't actually care about who die, and there isn't much of a problem. Alternatively, compare the US to an active war zone and the US doesn't look too bad.

Simple access to guns probably contributes significantly to the number of suicides. Suicide is normally an impulse action, often immediately regretted when not immediately successful, and having a quick and reliable way to kill oneself is going to result in more suicides.

Re:News at eleven

[david_thornley]

Fortunately for your argument, none of the deaths you attribute to Hitler's words had any involvement with firearms. Right?

Re:News at eleven

[david_thornley]

Yup. When I looked for AR-15-class guns, they cost several hundred each. I could easily afford one but, to be honest, I'd rather have a decent 3D printer.

Re:News at eleven

[david_thornley]

Last time a sharpened pencil got into me, it turned out to have lousy penetration. I can't even see the graphite under the skin anymore. If I'd been shot by even a low-powered gun, there would have been far more damage.

Re:News at eleven

[david_thornley]

"Assault rifle" is more of a military term. It means a personal rifle that can fire automatically, at first full auto but later the three-round burst got popular. It also has to be significantly more high-powered than most handguns, and be able to fire semi-automatically. The first ones are generally considered to be late WWII German developments.

There are guns rights advocates who like to pretend they can't understand people who use anything other than the standard terminology. Essentially, they are ardent and very specialized grammar Nazis.

Re:News at eleven

[david_thornley]

If you've got a four-person home invasion going, and a handgun or shotgun won't deter them, an AR-15 is unlikely to allow you to win. A person with an AR-15 is not a superman, and will succumb to bullets even more than Superman succumbs to kryptonite. One of them will almost certainly get you before you get all of them.

Re:News at eleven

[david_thornley]

If you shoot yourself fatally, that's (a) a gun death, and (b) not murder. This is true whether it's a really dumb accident or suicide. Both murders and gun deaths are relevant statistics to this argument.

Re:News at eleven

[david_thornley]

Make a list of possible weapons. Now, order them according to how much you'd dislike having a small middle-aged woman attack you with them. I think I know how guns would rate relative to axes and knives.

Re:News at eleven

[cayenne8]

I'd like to at least have the opportunity to increase the odds on my side...

At the very least, if I have an AR with at least a standard capacity (30 round) magazine or two with me....I"d like to think I'd take a few of them out before they got me.

Re:News at eleven

[goose-incarnated]

It's irrelevant - the only thing I care about in this debate is where I have a higher chance of being a victim of any crime, gun crimes included.

Most people only care about whether they are safe or not, not whether the gun death rate is higher than the non-gun-death rate. IOW, they care about the murder rate. They care about how safe or not they are, not about how many guns are in the area.

If you really want to drag in relevant stats, how about you pull in the number of gun deaths attributable to gang activity?

My odds of dying by gun goes way down when I am not in a gang, falls further when I am not a criminal, and practically vanishes into nothing when I'm not in an urban area, even though I *OWN* a gun.

The odds of a kid (mine or anyone elses) dying by a gun (mine or anyone elses) is a lot lowerthan the odds of them drowning in my pool. I'm not getting rid of my pool either.

Re:News at eleven

[david_thornley]

From another point of view, what matters is the number of deaths. There's various ways to look at this, and the number of deaths is valid.

It's hard to calculate how many deaths are due to guns. Without guns, less effective weapons would be used. This is probably going to reduce the suicide death rate (don't discount the possibility that you or a loved one might develop some sort of mental illness and die of suicide), and likely the homicide rate.

Guns can also prevent deaths, but figuring out this effect is probably impossible.

And, yes, I don't pay attention to dangers less than those which I defy by driving to work daily either.

Re:News at eleven

[CanHasDIY]

Fortunately for your argument, none of the deaths you attribute to Hitler's words had any involvement with firearms. Right?

Not one that he fired himself. Hitler used his words to get other people to commit acts of violence for him, meaning that words are actually far more dangerous than weapons.

Why is this news?

[maiden_taiwan]

This story says nothing special about YouTube. In any group of a billion people (i.e., YouTube users), some of them are going to be crazy, or violent, or both.

Re:Unfair

[Bruce Perens]

Go after the C*O's or stockholders

Old lady on pension that invests in Youtube assaulted by irate content author. News at 11.

Can't make a living on YouTube videos?

[OrangeTide]

Then get a fucking day job like the rest of us losers.

Re:Can't make a living on YouTube videos?

[OrangeTide]

...and how many disgruntled employees with day jobs have "gone postal".

Most people with day jobs aren't disgruntled. Those people should probably take action to change their situation, rather than burning the world down. Not that rational discussion has much meaning to someone in such an emotional state.

Re:Can't make a living on YouTube videos?

[david_thornley]

I assure you that I haven't always been thoroughly gruntled at work. There was one job that I had recurrent dreams about being rescued from. I know other people who have been much less than gruntled at work.

I smell a rat ...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Looks like some pre attack shelling to soften up the ground by ambulance chasers. rats ... ambulance chasers... all same

media take on statistics

[mapkinase]

One incident - harbringer, two incident - trend, three incidents - national catastrophe

Too many false positives

[Kludge]

they had plenty of reasons to fear that someone like her might one day show up,

No, they did not.

Employees Say Violent Threats Have Been Going on For Years

anger and paranoia aren't unique among the millions of people who create and post videos to the site

These demonstrate that many people say obnoxious things, but that does not mean that they will actually do something.
People ask why the FBI does not identify violent shooters before they kill people. I am sure the FBI gets tens of thousands of reports about such people, and very very few actually do anything. How do you tell the difference?

Re:Humans are garbage.

[DickBreath]

Learn to recycle.

Humans are fuel for the AIs.

Blame the internet

[ArchieBunker]

In the past these crazy people all existed but were limited to people they interacted with in real life. Now crazy people find each other and get egged on by the rest of the internet.

Re: Given the way Youtube acts no surprise

[alexanderhlau]

Yeah, they go to the Youtube Office and shoot everyone.

YouTube treats their creators like shit

[MSTCrow5429]

YT randomly changes policies, which are always vaguely written policies. It's impossible for creators to contact YT for help with arbitrarily (and often wrongly) applied policies. Many otherwise successful moneymakers, for YT first and foremost, suddenly and without warning are thrown under the bus. I've never been a creator, but how many people does YT have to screw over before they screw over the wrong person?

Re:YouTube treats their creators like shit

[eaglesrule]

I hope YT continues to screw over content creators. The best thing that could happen would be if that SJW feminist CEO Susan Wojcicki, who is worth nearly half a billion dollars as she cheats content producers out of income, drops policy bombs until there is a mass revolt.

It isn't that I want to see such a marvel of a marketplace of ideas burn; it would just be preferable to a death by a thousand cuts in having the producers disperse. A new platform that protects free speech, that promotes content fairly, and is not capricious in dealing with content producers is required. I would gladly pay to access that.

Re:YouTube treats their creators like shit

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to think that a Youtube-killer would be insanely difficult, if not impossible, to pull off. But these days I think it would be possible if a number of Youtube's top creators, such as PewDiePie, got together with an entrepreneur and a team of tecchies. PewDiePie alone has 62 Million subscribers. If a decent number of big channels were invested, then TONS of smaller ones would follow. Hundreds of millions of viewers following their favourite creators to a new platform over night.

Re:YouTube treats their creators like shit

[AbRASiON]

They already have. The girl who shot the place up was unhappy in a sudden major reduction in videos watched on her channel.

She was nuts, yes, 100% but they fucked with her, so she came for them.

Re:YouTube treats their creators like shit

[serviscope_minor]

that promotes content fairly,

And your definition of fair is...?

Re:YouTube treats their creators like shit

[themusicgod1]

So that would be steem/dtube ?

Re:YouTube treats their creators like shit

[Opportunist]

Let it stand or fall on its own merit. Only bad ideas need censorship for survival.

Re:YouTube treats their creators like shit

[serviscope_minor]

Right so you have no suggestions at all other than promoting should be on "merit".

Presumably merit is defined as videos promoting whatever whackjob theories you subscribe to...

It's not censorship to not promote right wing nutcase videos to me because I'm not going to watch them.

Re:YouTube treats their creators like shit

[Opportunist]

Promotion should happen based on what seems to be relevant for the viewer. When I watch, say, religious nutjob videos, I would expect to see religious nutjob videos in my suggestions along with people disagreeing with those so I can get a view of both sides of the fence. If I don't want to leave my skydaddy-bubble, I'll quickly find out which videos to avoid so it doesn't scare me by showing me that the nutjobs keep feeding me bullshit.

And trust me, you should watch right wing nutcases. At least from time to time you should watch something to laugh about.

Re:YouTube treats their creators like shit

[serviscope_minor]

Promotion should happen based on what seems to be relevant for the viewer.

Sure, but you said merit before, which is much more nebulous. As it is, youtube keeps giving machining videos and people squashing shit in a hydraulic press which seems about right to me.

Re:YouTube treats their creators like shit

[Opportunist]

The point was censorship and how I don't agree with it. No matter what form it takes, in the end, if an idea cannot survive on its own or if it gets debunked and disproved, propping it up by censoring the falsification doesn't make it any more right.

Don't take it out on the staffers

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like yelling at the cashier at the store, or burning down your own neighborhood during a riot.

No, to be effective, you go after the decision makers and bosses. Make them feel the pain for being assholes. Nobody, least of all the boss, cares about the staffers. They'll be replaced with a lower wage worker.

Re: Don't take it out on the staffers

[Anonymous Coward]

Customers do their jobs and go for the staffers. Staffers should do their and go for decision makers.

This, or staffers could politely show customers the way upstairs when confronted with the point of a gun instead of calling security.

But under no circumstance do staffers get to have it both ways: "I'm sorry sir, can't accommodate you, it's company policy; my hands are tied. And no, I can't lead you to policy makers, I'm here so they don't have to deal with you."

Re: Don't take it out on the staffers

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, staffers have no clout and are too easy to fire. It's up to the customer to hit the right target. If you're going to run around and say there are no innocents, then the customers are just as guilty.

Re: Don't take it out on the staffers

[Opportunist]

So the staff gets to choose to either get shot at or get fired. Because that's the options you present to them.

Bad business model?

[Locke2005]

If you're business model attracts crazies by offering them free money, perhaps you should come up with a different business model?

Re:Bad business model?

[Stoutlimb]

I don't like to do business with anyone I can't find in real life and shake by the shirt collar if they fuck with me. Youtube is so reliant on algorithms and anonymity that they forget that people can track them down and give them what-for. They feel so insulated from their user base that they treat them like crap with impunity. If they had to shake hands and make eye contact with the people they partner with, they would never treat people this horribly.

Re:Bad business model?

[eaglesrule]

Bait and switch is indeed a poor business model, but it does work if your company has a secure monopoly position.

Re:Bad business model?

[Opportunist]

The thing I don't get here is that YouTube hardly has a monopoly position. Yes, they're the biggest, but at the same time, they are the crappiest. They are the ones that censor the most and they are also the ones that get hit with DMCA-takedown notices the worst (unlike ... well pretty much any YouTube clone outside the US).

This isn't a new thing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's tragic, but not exactly a new phenomenon.

Almost a decade ago, I used to work for a mid-sized videogame development studio. After we released a new version of a popular FPS shooter, we were DELUGED with threats to murder us and our families because we hadn't made it exactly like the previous version.

It began with emails and phone calls. We went through six front desk admins in three months who had to go on stress leave after handling hundreds of abusive and threatening phone calls per day, often reducing them to tears.

We had employees get stalked on FB and social media and harassed there. We had one disgruntled "fan" make dozens of YouTube videos, doxxing employees and encouraging other "fans" to track them down in person and kill them.

Fortunately, we didn't publish our address so there was no easy way for someone to find us in person, or so I thought.

At one point, I was standing outside our office when a police cruiser pulled up, a cop gets out of the car and asks, "Do you guys work for X?" We said we did. Cop then unholsters his service weapon and suggests that we shouldn't piss off loyal fans like himself. He then gets back in his cruiser and tears off. I got the car's ID number and called the PD to report the incident and was told not to waste their time over a videogame.

The Internet is the ultimate accelerant for toxic narcissism and the only surprising thing is that more people aren't murdered more regularly.

Re:This isn't a new thing

[Stoutlimb]

Just don't pretend that it only goes one way. Youtube treats their content creators like garbage and gets away with it because of the same principle of Internet anonymity. Hiding behind an algorithm to screw people out of their livelyhoods is at least as evil. Whether it's toxicly narcissistic gamers, or toxicly narcissistic bosses, it's the same thing.

Re:This isn't a new thing

[Opportunist]

You said FPS, so I know it wasn't Supreme Commander... so I don't care.

Re:Given the way Youtube acts no surprise

[Locke2005]

To be fair, YouTube has no obligation to guarantee anyone a revenue stream. Common courtesy would be to give as much advance notice as possible, however.

Unless she was a highly trained ninja

[rsilvergun]

Or an explosives expert she probably would have done less damage. Contrary to what the internet would have you believe handling explosives isn't as easy as you think. Especially for crazy people. And a 120lb woman with a knife just isn't a threat.

Like everything else, guns are best when they're legal, taxed and regulated. We got the first two, it's time for #3.

Re:Unless she was a highly trained ninja

[cayenne8]

Like everything else, guns are best when they're legal, taxed and regulated. We got the first two, it's time for #3.

Funny...I've had the regulated background checks on my gun purchases.

It is highly regulated, hell, you should see what we've had to do just to buy supressors, just to make them more hearing safe when target shooting with them, talk about overly regulated!!

Re:Apeshit was the wrong play

[butchersong]

Youtube does not have the capacity to censor you. They are never going to censor you, because they can't. If they spend a million dollars in an effort to censor you, they will fail and you will effortlessly defy their million dollar effort even if you are dirt poor. The worst they can do, is kick you off their site so that you have to host it yourself or find a Youtube competitor to host it.

Censorship is not exclusive to the government putting their boot on your throat. It is quite correct to say that Youtube is censoring topics or creators if they are curating their content in such a way as to suppress their videos. It may not be a first amendment violation but that is also debatable to a degree in the following. If Youtube doesn't want to be liable for the content on its site that it does not upload, perhaps platforms of this size should be given the choice of liability or common carrier status. If they choose a status like this then in fact free speech would apply and they would be indemnified to a degree from whatever offensive content they may host. I'm not 100% sure where I stand on this but I think I could debate with a degree of security either position.

Re: Given the way Youtube acts no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people think they are entitled to an income stream care od youtube?

Because Youtube makes it appear that they're entitled to that income stream.

https://creatoracademy.youtube.com/page/lesson/revenue-basics

For example, the link above claims that "Whether your goal is to earn back some of what you spent making your videos or to become a sustainable business, YouTube’s platform lets you make money with successful videos." Notice that they claim that making YouTube videos can be a "sustainable business".

Re:Given the way Youtube acts no surprise

[King_TJ]

There are a lot of problems with YouTube and censoring of content. Personally, I still take issue with the way they block videos simply based on a supposed copyright infringement any time they detect a copyrighted piece of music playing in the background.

(One guy I know just recently complained how they uploaded some video clip of his family at a ball game, and the video got pulled because some rock music came over the PA system in the ballpark during the video.)

The only reasonable way to deal with this, IMO, is for YouTube and other streaming services of their type to strike up blanket deals with the recording industry rights-holders. Pay some annual fee to ensure that any user can post content containing any of their copyrighted music in it legally. In fact, in the early days, I thought that's exactly what was proposed and done in some cases? I don't know what ever happened with that? Perhaps the recording industry got too greedy and refused to work a deal at anything resembling a reasonable rate? Or maybe YouTube decided it could save money by not bothering, and just promising to pull everything they could find with their fancy digital analysis software?

Re: A religion is born

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns have two uses and only two. Any other use like "collecting" is a smoke screen.

If you own a gun you use it to either:

A) Kill (hunting, or murder, self defense)
B) sport(target practice, skeet)

A gun offers no other uses.

Not just Youtube

[nehumanuscrede]

Any time you make changes that impact someoneâ(TM)s income in a negative way, people get angry about it.

How angry depends on how badly they were screwed over in addition to the individuals personality.

See any news story about a recently fired employee who came back armed to the teeth with vengeance on their mind.

This type of behavior is far from unique to online venues.

Re:Given the way Youtube acts no surprise

[swb]

But do they have an obligation to provide transparent decision-making and predictable rules and regulations?

The more cynical among us know that web services, especially free ones, are likely to go tits up, change policies/prices, and generally fuck over their users and customers as soon as management figures out the next change that makes them an extra dime.

But most people kind of expect things to be more stable and predictable, and it is entirely unsurprising when the people who built up these services with their own content get jacked around that they get wound up.

Obviously killing people isn't right, but there's no negotiating, no explanation, nothing. You get more response out of TSA at the airport.

Re:Apeshit was the wrong play

[Anonymous Coward]

But you can go somewhere else! It's not about whether or not Youtube is government; it's about the fact that you can run Apache on any VPS and serve up a web page with a video tag that points at the video that you also host on that VPS. This is absurdly easy to do and nobody needs Youtube.

And if Youtube doesn't like what you're publishing on your competing website, they have to suck it up and take it. They lose. The conflict is ended and the video maker wins and gets everything they want and Youtube gest nothing. How is that censorship?!

Any time you can just tell the other person "fuck off" and you can walk away and do your own thing without any negative repercussions, that's a pretty good situation. I don't understand how someone can have a problem with that. And if it's worth killing for, it sounds a lot like a jealous ex-boyfriend telling the ex-girlfriend "if I can't have you, no one can." Fuck that. This chick was completely nuts and if she hadn't gone apeshit on Youtube it would have just been someone else.

"Hi, here are my beaver pelts. Still paying $10 apiece?"

"Alas, we only pay $1 apiece now. Beaver pelts have become plentiful and also not as many of my own customers buy them anymore."

"I insist that you pay me $10 per pelt. Here are ten of then. Pay me $100."

"I'm afraid I can't buy them. My competitor in the next town might be willing, though."

"You cut off my revenue stream! This is your fault! You did a thing to me! BLAM BLAM BLAM! BLAM!"

Fuck that bitch.

Guns are like Bittorrent, superficially

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns are like Bittorrent. The primary use of bittorrent is copy infringement. I'd guess just 10% of bittorrent use is legal. Nobody here would say that bittorrent needs to be outlawed.
OTOH, firearms are used daily, safely, legally, all over the USA with a tiny amount of illegal use in comparison.

Same for cars, except I bet everyone driving a car today used it illegally. I did. I drove 50 mph in a 45 mph zone. I also drove 30 mph in a school zone! Cars need to be removed from our hands, since we obviously can't be trusted with them. Only law enforcement and the military should have vehicles. Plus, there are many more deaths by cars than bittorrent or guns. Cars are evil.

See the flaw in the logic?

Bad people can kill others many different ways.
BTW, over 50% of gun deaths in the USA are by suicide. Crazy people will find a way to kill themselves, if that is their intent. A friend of mine committed suicide. No warning. He used a gun. OTOH, my father starved himself to death. We had about 20 days of warning.

Re:Guns are like Bittorrent, superficially

[Opportunist]

If you compare going over the speed limit with shooting people then yes, I can see the flaw in the logic.

Go to a gun show

[rsilvergun]

If you live in or near a major city there's one every couple weeks. No background checks whatsoever.

Re:Go to a gun show

[cayenne8]

Nope..gun FFL gun dealers at gun shows have to fill the forms and do background checks on the weapons they sell.

In some states...PRIVATE citizens can sell their own firearms privately without background checks, this can happen anywhere, doesn't happen at a gun show, but can....these type of people are not sitting there with tables of guns selling them as a business.

This is more like say I have a gun and my friend I know wants it, I can sell it directly to him as a private transaction.....just like I could sell him my lawnmower without government interaction. This also covers allowing families to hand guns down or give them as gifts.

But you go to a gun show....where they have the tables of guns and try to buy one without a background check, you are going to leave empty handed.

Have you ever been to a gun show?

Unsafe work space

[p51d007]

A lot of these "tech campus locations" are wide open. It's suppose to be open, encourage creativity bla bla bla. You see some of the same going into some public schools. This "open space" approach can make it too easy for a NUT JOB to cause havoc.

Scary YouTube creators

[cascadingstylesheet]

I for one would not want to make "Diamond and Silk" angry ...

Re:Scary YouTube creators

[martinX]

I saw them and I think if they said "Reinstate our YouTube channel with ALL the monetisation. NOW." to me, my only response would be "Yes, ma'am." And I would.

Re:Scary YouTube creators

[Opportunist]

What's scary about them?

Re: A religion is born

[Z80a]

You can also point a gun at someone to demand this someone to stop doing something, and solve the conflict peacefully.
You can't do that with a sword or a car or most inanimate objects.

It was 3 people shot

[rsilvergun]

all lived, all walked out of the hospital. As shootings go it was barely even a blip. It only made the news because it happened at Youtube and the women is kinda odd looking.

It is much harder to kill with other object

[aepervius]

Look that canard get touted by gun fans every time. I am sorry this is wrong. There is a reason we progressed as weapon from blunt object, to less blunt object (stone axe, stone spear, some bows) to bronze weapon and far weapon(spear, sword, arrow & bow) to iron weapon, it was a progress. WHY the FUCK do you think no FUCKING army in the world are still using ANYTHING BUT guns. I am sorry for the caps but I am screaming here. Because it is highly inefficient to use anything but a gun/riffle you dolt. With a non distance weapon you got to go to your target, target can dodge, can use other object to protect, can use arm (and yes get wounded) to defend, can run away (with a gun or riffle this is not always a winning proposition - much much harder to stab somebody with a knife while that person is running away). You don't necessarily die from 1 stab either, so while that person is trying to stab you passerby can stop her. And I pass many other. Saying that person could have killed as many or even 1 person if she had no access to gun is the most quasi lie that gun proponent keep touting. Is anybody swallowing that lie I do wonder? Or are you convincing yourself ?

Re: Apeshit was the wrong play

[Reverend Green]

YouTube did nothing wrong! Google uber alles!

Re: A religion is born

[Z80a]

You never needed a parachute as well.

Re:Humans are garbage.

[Opportunist]

Hush, coppertop.

Re: Given the way Youtube acts no surprise

[Opportunist]

And they also claim that they "let you make money" with successful videos.

Re:Apeshit was the wrong play

[david_thornley]

Internet forums that don't police contributors become useless and unprofitable. This has been known since the mid-90s at latest. It hasn't changed since, and I see no reason to think it might ever change. "Common carrier" status is good for infrastructure, not platform providers. A choice of liability or common carrier status would mean that no site like YouTube could continue to exist. If it went common carrier, it would be spammed to unusability and cease to be profitable. If it went liability, it would have to either spend lots of resources on user-provided content, enough to make it unprofitable, or risk too many lawsuits to remain profitable.

You could debate either side, but you'd be wrong either way.

It very definitely isn't a First Amendment violation. "Congress shall make no law....", extended to state governments by the Fourteenth Amendment, means it's only binding on US governments. No government is involved in this.

There was absolutely nothing preventing the woman in question from putting her videos somewhere else. Only a government could enforce that. A private company has no ability to suppress videos outside their site (except for copyright violation).

Re: A religion is born

[david_thornley]

Once you've drawn a gun with intent to use it, I think the word "peacefully" is inappropriate. Most cases of aiming a gun at someone and demanding something are felonies.

Re:A religion is born

[david_thornley]

Were guns designed to put holes in paper targets? In general, no. (There are rifles specifically designed to be good at that task, but not that many.) There's more efficient ways to put holes in paper targets. I favor a hole punch, myself, or maybe a sharp pencil. In a pinch, I can stick a finger through.

Guns, on the other hand, were designed to be able to kill and injure people and animals. I can't kill someone with a hole punch or a finger poke, and a sharp pencil is quite difficult to use effectively in the role. Making holes in paper targets is probably the task rifles are most used for in the US, but that's not what they were designed to do.

Re: A religion is born

[Z80a]

Indeed this is the case.
But what i mean with the word "peacefully" is that with a gun, you have a much bigger chance of surrendering the person, thus not having to actually engage and end with someone dead.

Re:Ignore customers - Some will respond badly

[RockDoctor]

Google (and Youtube, Facebook etc) are very attentive to their customers. The problem is that some of their users are under the mistaken belief that they're customers, not product.

Example of NPD behavior

[MrKaos]

So this is a great example of how a NPD interacts. First thing you notice is that they interact at a teenage level where their emotional development ended. They're so injured by the very idea of someone taking their supply that this one can't even spell properly.

wah wah wahhhhh.

This part demonstrates how the NPD has no capacity to interact in such a way to defend the rights they claim to be entitled to so they resort to trying to provoke an emotion response.

i would pretend to be narcicist too for 1-cent of every 100 views.

This is what an NPD needs to validate their world view about themselves. They're so desperate for attention because of the love their father didn't give them and from their mothers telling them they're special. Inside their heads a voice incessantly pesters them about how worthless they are.

gtfo...

Here you can see how desperately boring the NPD is. They don't have anything to offer so they resort to trying to trigger emotional responses. This one displays NPD traits with an over-exaggerated sense of self-importance that no-one but himself can see. The rest of the world just sees a loser.

Generally, I just ignore them, which hurts them the most however you can go as far as triggering a full blown nervous breakdown in them. Generally I wouldn't waste my time however for anyone still reading this thread this AC comment is a good example of how classic NPD abuse is conducted, they can't help themselves.

I suggest this one will be punished by their own ego for failing to get a response as expected, which can be so brutally punishing that they fall into a deep depression sometimes for days and weeks. They may find themselves trapped into risking a response that invites much more of the type of psychological torture they like to inflict or putting up with the punishment from the ego and acknowledging to themselves again that they are worthless.

Either way from what I've seen they inevitably validate their own ego's punishment of themselves for not securing the attention they covet so the voices in their head end up going on and on louder and louder torturing them for being such a loser and knowing it.

Don't feel sorry for them, that's how they want leave their victims.