Mass Shootings

There's Almost Certainly Nothing Congress Could Have Done to Stop the YouTube Shooting

Looking for political or cultural calls to action in this act of violence is a fool's errand.

|

As I write this, almost nothing is known about the identity, motive, or even weapon used by the woman who shot four three people at YouTube's office in San Bruno, California, today.

Graeme MacDonald/CrowdSpark/Newscom

CNN is reporting that the shooter, dead at her own hand, knew at least one of her victims, according to police sources. MSNBC tweets also indicate she had a specific grievance against at least one of her victims. [UPDATE: Later reporting backtracks on all that, claiming there is no reason to believe she knew any of her victims.] This indicates, in all likelihood, what one would normally consider a standard crime of violence: someone with a grievance against someone else she thought justified attempted murder. This is tragic, and a near-constant part of human social life since the beginning of recorded history. We have not yet found a way to craft a world in which no one has so much grief, or evil, or anger, that she might see such a crime as justified. [UPDATE: The shooter has been identified as Nasim Aghdam, born in Iran and a radical vegan with an animus against YouTube over how it treated her channel.]

Gabrielle Giffords, the former congresswoman and herself a victim of a would-be killer using a gun, has already sent out an emailed press release (online here) connecting this woman's crime with congressional inaction: "How much longer do we have to wait before Congress takes action to make our communities safer from gun violence? How many more breaking news updates about active shooters do we have to live through? How many more lives will be lost?"

While as I type I do not know what sort of weapon the killer used [UPDATE: likely a handgun from eyewitness reports], there is no imaginable world in which anything Congress could have done, either in the past weeks or past years, would have prevented her from potential access to a weapon to facilitate her wish to commit this crime. Giffords, perhaps unaware she is doing this, is positing the political power to make hundreds of millions of existing weapons in circulation just plain disappear from the face of the Earth, imagining laws that do something far beyond any of the specific laws (regarding things such widening the types of people prohibited from owning guns moving forward, widening the types of gun sales requiring background checks, banning certain specific types of weapons or magazines) usually advocated in the wake of public shootings (most of which, even had they been in existence and enforced with universal success, would not or would not necessarily have stopped such crimes).

The shooter being a woman already seems of interest to many, seen as putting the lie to the notion that these sort of public crimes are uniquely a product of something toxic in American masculinity. She may turn out to fall into some category that some substantial percentage of Americans mistrust for some reason, whether because of her religion, her citizenship status, her politics, her mental health, her attitudes toward guns, or toward YouTube, or toward men. Yet it would be unreasonable in the extreme to take the action of this one member of whatever group you could pigeonhole her in as saying anything worth knowing about how such people should be regarded or treated.

Like everything being said or thought about today's events, this is being written in vast ignorance of many specifics. Yet it is hard to imagine what we could learn that would reasonably mean her crime tells us anything of politico-cultural significance that requires changing the way we as a people think about any given issue, or certainly how our lawmakers make laws.

Guns exist, and cannot be eliminated. People with streaks of evil, madness, or grievance of any sort exist, and cannot be legislated away. California already has a set of gun control laws that are seen by most pro-gun control types as something the nation should aspire to. YouTube's offices had armed security.

That too many of us allow our minds to be whipsawed by our instant access to details about every random or rare horror life is rife with, that too many of us feel some obligation to come to some opinion about how such events mean the world must change in some way that satisfies our priors, does our politics and culture no good.

Nor is there any political or cultural solution to that problem, except to remind people (and ourselves) to be reasonable about the conclusions jumped to about every hideous public crime, and to be balanced and intelligent in understanding how law or politics could conceivably improve the situation.

NEXT: Shooting Reported at YouTube HQ in Bay Area

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Gabrielle Giffords, the former congresswoman and herself a victim of a would-be killer using a gun, has already sent out an emailed press release connecting this woman’s crime with congressional inaction

    Jesus, they work fast.

    1. Her puppeteers have the press releases ready to go whenever a white person(s) gets shot.

      1. Excuse me, only middle to upper class white deaths are meaningful and newsworthy. No one gives a flyin’ fug about the poors.

        1. I can’t tell if you’re being ironic because this is absolutely true. The gun-grabbers could run headlines of multiple deaths by gunshot every day if they included poorer people and gang violence. But they don’t really care about those people, and neither do their acolytes, so they don’t. They stick to kids and upper-crust victims.

          1. He’s always being ironic.

              1. In this case it is. I don’t want to consider the truth of your comment further down the page.

              2. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

                This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

              3. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

                This is what I do..look here more
                http://www.richdeck.com

            1. I think you mean “sarcastic,” no? Crusty is always sarcastic. His behavior can be ironic, though, such as when he went to the gun control march to get some proggie strange in his van, but ended up hanging out all night with a group of Mormons in his van instead, because they were just so super nice and asked him how he keeps his body hair so shiny.

              1. You both have such richer lives than us normies

        2. Well I would say that these people shot at Youtube headquarters should count as middle to upper class white people even though only one of the people died of a self inflicted wound.

    2. I am hesitant to listen to advice from someone who has been shot in the head.

      1. Excellent.

      2. Giffords has, somewhat understandably, been neurotic since the shooting. Kind of like Stephen King after he got hit by a car. IIRC, there was somebody concealed carrying in the shopping center, but he was not close enough to help before unarmed citizens had detained the dude. Those Arizonans don’t mess around.

      3. Gabrielle Giffords may not have even written the email that was sent out. But there are a plenty of others who could and would have written it and even though there is nothing that could have been done to stop this shooting and there is no connection they will do ANYTHING to get rid of guns.

        1. Curly4|4.3.18 @ 9:45PM|#
          “Gabrielle Giffords may not have even written the email that was sent out.”
          I would say that’s an odds-on bet. It was sent over her signature; she probably never saw it.

          1. My thought is that she saw it. It was written in advance, waiting for the next shooting that fit the narrative. Some staffer brought it up and hit send.
            Never see her fainting over a one or two shooting where a black shoots a black, though, do we?

      4. Harsh and cruel, but I laughed.

        1. If she or her minions are to use her diminished capacity to promote political ends, she deserves all the crap thrown back in her face.

      5. AND been a democratic politician.

    3. Anyone else remember the instant flood of gun control tweets and facebook posts in response to a “mass shooting” that that turned out to have been a knife attack, no gun involved?

      1. So?
        It might have been a gun, so cut loose.

  2. Gabrielle Giffords, the former congresswoman and herself a victim of a would-be killer using a gun, has already sent out an emailed press release connecting this woman’s crime with congressional inaction…

    You know, maybe there is something to the claim that grabbers get metaphorical hardons over these types of incidents.

    1. They literally have teams, waiting for the next one in shifts like firemen, and at the first report it’s GO GO GO. With pre-written scripts, fill in the blanks, depending on the details.

      They’re well aware that their policies are horrible losers when subject to calm reflection, they just hope to pump up the hysteria to the point where their polices won’t be subject to calm reflection.

      1. In the words of that great philosopher, Forrest Gump:
        Progressive is as Progressive does!

  3. Good job, Doherty.

  4. I’m literally rage-shaking my fear-boner right now

    1. Gosh, isn’t that just the best feeling?

  5. it is hard to imagine what we could learn

    The point is, the next one could be terrorism. So we need to keep bombing the middle east. Because religion=violence.

  6. How much longer do we have to wait before Congress takes action to make our communities safer from gun violence?

    Of course she means action intended to make our communities safer from gun violence. And as long as your intentions are good it doesn’t matter if your actions make things worse.

    My proposal would be to bring in a black lesbian shaman from Africa to sprinkle chicken feathers around in a gun-violence-elimination ceremony. It would have as good an effect as anything Congress could come up with at almost no cost and no unintended consequences. And nobody except racist sexist homophobic xenophobes could possibly criticize the effort.

    1. I wish this site had a ‘like’ feature.

    2. Think of the poor chickens!

      I propose they sprikle chia seeds.

      1. Whatever the term radical vegan means, they would be all over that. Probably with mass bombings – – – –

    3. “And as long as your intentions are good it doesn’t matter if your actions make things worse.”

      To put even a finer point on it, as long as your “stated” intentions appear to be good….

    4. Wow, insensitive. If the shooter were still alive she’d straighten you out on your proposed cruelty to chickens.

  7. “There’s Almost Certainly Nothing Congress Could Have Done to Stop the YouTube Shooting”

    The Left believes in Utopia, not trade offs in an imperfect world.

    Or, maybe more accurately, they *feel* one issue at a time, and howl for All Powerful Mommy to make it better.

    1. There is one thing. They could repeal the 2nd amendment and make the possession of a weapon a very serious crime even death.

      1. Looks like she gave herself the death penalty, so no, wouldn’t have stopped her.

      2. Alternatively, they could make shooting someone a very serious crime, even death.

  8. The coverage of this on CNN is ridiculous.

    They’ve got eight, count ’em, eight correspondents covering this–not to mention a number of analysts and a Democratic congressman standing by to comment.

    You’d have thought this was a terrorist attack.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMHsKtaVVvk

    1. The opening report is talking about the emergency response, the triage areas that have been set up . . .

      Excuse me, triage areas?!

      Triage is for separating those with life threatening injuries, those whose injuries can probably wait while the critically wounded are being treated, and those whose injuries are so bad, it might not be worth wasting the time to save them–when that time could be better spent on someone else who probably will survive with treatment. They use this system to prioritize patients when there are more casualties than surgeons available–especially in natural disasters, collecting wounded from a battlefield, etc.

      Somebody apparently cheated on his wife. They get really pissed off about that.

      Big deal.

      There were three wounded,and the shooter is dead from a self-inflicted gunshot. They were all transported to a local hospital. Why are they discussing triage areas?

      I guess they need the other seven reporters to weigh in from the hospital, to get Donald Trump’s reaction on twitter, to see if the National Guard will get involved, to find out what Congress will do about this situation, and to see if the shooter posted anything on Facebook?

      The analysts are probably there to see if there were any semi-automatic weapons involved and to tell us when the high school kids will show up on YouTube campus to tell us that they’re now scared to go to the YouTube campus.

      You’d think the whole world has gone full retard.

      1. The triage areas are for the Professional Grief Counselors to gather.

      2. Not the whole world, but a big chunk of western culture sure has.

        1. No, pretty sure it’s the whole world.

          1. The rest of the world was always crazy.

            Some percentage of the West took a detour from insanity during the Enlightenment, but that’s coming to an end.

            I blame the end of the Cold War: the communist East Bloc kept the crazies contained and provided a living example of the stupidity of Marxism. These days, senile fools like Bernie go around proudly proclaiming their support for genocidal ideologies and people actually think that’s OK.

      3. They are doing mental health triage. To figure out who is upset, versus who has PTSD, versus who has to be put down from their mental scarring.

        1. So, you gotta separate the people who are having a psychobilly freakout from the people who are just having a conniption–from the ones who are just average progressives in a persistent state of hissy fit?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn4lJqbv7So

          I’d hate to have that job.

          1. Now that comment got me chuckling.

            Two likes!!

      4. I think the emergency responders set up a triage area, because you don’t know if anyone has life threatening injuries until you check people for life threatening injuries. Triage is for determining the order of treatment when you have a large number of victims. If one progressive has a skinned knee and 100 progressive coworkers complain to EMTs about feeling anxiety over the skinned knee, you have to set up triage to make sure none on the progressives are suicidal before you put a band-aid on the skinned knee.

    2. The victim(s) are liberals at liberal-commieland HQ, this is absolutely of paramount importance.

      Meanwhile some brown or black person is probably getting plugged by the cops and no one will give a single fuck.

      1. To these people, black lives don’t matter.

      2. Somebody should start asking about whether all this sensationalized coverage of small shooting events is a contributing factor to these “mass shootings”.

        These sick people may do things like this because they want to be noticed. If they couldn’t count on CNN treating a small shooting like it was Pearl Harbor, maybe this shooting wouldn’t have happened.

        Maybe it’s time somebody started pressuring CNN’s advertisers because of their tasteless and irresponsible coverage. Jerry Springer is more socially responsible than this.

        1. According to a CNN report, the alleged Parkland shooter is getting fan mail. The mail includes love letters with pics from women. The article quotes an expert without any self-awareness to explain the phenominum:

          Some people may be sympathetic to how Cruz has been portrayed — as a person with a lot of difficulties — said Dr. Robi Ludwig, a psychotherapist and commentator. “There are some people who are more codependent in terms of mindset that think, ‘Oh, this poor soul. I can fix him. I can be important in his life,'” she said.

        2. They already know that the “copycat effect” is a big part of it. They just don’t care.

          Maybe that’s an exaggeration, perhaps they do care, and consider it a side benefit. Since “if it bleeds it leads”, and provides another opportunity to push for gun control.

      3. These people were out saving our world. Those black people were up to something shady. Completely different.

      4. Meanwhile thousands of young black people are gunned down by young black men using illegally obtained handguns and it barely makes the local news.

    3. You’d have thought this was a terrorist attack.

      Nah…if it was a terrorist attack, they’d be doing their level best to bury it.

  9. Why does not Congress ban gangs?

    Lack of Article I jurisdiction?

      1. I’ve bought several shirts because Brett wore then on FOTC. Somehow I missed this one. Oh, looks like this one is not commercially available.

        Also, how sexy is Murray’s walk? Hubba hubba.

        1. Mel, is that you?

    1. “”Why does not Congress ban gangs?”‘

      Because they will ban crap like the Juggalos.

  10. Gabrielle Giffords, the former congresswoman […] has already sent out an emailed press release (online here) connecting this woman’s crime with congressional inaction

    Whoa, there, Giffords! The shell casings are not yet cold and you’re already calling for rounding up and executing gun owners by the hundreds of thousands(*)? At least wait a few more hours and then assure everyone that you are not going after anybody’s property. Don’t telegraph your malicious intentions so recklessly!

    (*) Marxian wet dream.

    1. I don’t know what might have prevented this shooting, but whatever it is–we should have done it?

      1. The solution to mass shootings is for everyone to be armed. They might get one but they won’t get two.

        1. It’s true.

  11. Ya gotta hand it to California. First the Saracen couple with the locked iPhones, and now this alleged Youtube gal. This is some serious empowering of women exercising Second Amendment rights. Puts Puerto Rico’s Lolita Lebr?n to shame. They still need some work on the “initiation of force” part of dealing with ethical conundrums.

    1. You know what they say about blind prostitutes?

      Ya gotta hand it to them.

    2. I haven’t seen violent armed women get this much press since Lorena Bobbit was on the front page.

      1. According to a Huffington Post retrospective piece about Lorena Bobbit, about six women die every day at the hands of their intimate partners, because even that story is all about violence towards women.

      2. I’m sure the patriarchy is at fault… somehow.

  12. Gabrielle Giffords, the former congresswoman and herself a victim of a would-be killer using a gun

    And Sarah Palin still roams the streets as a free woman.

  13. Congress can’t do anything but the SC can. It’s called constitutional carry and all they have to do is strike down all carry laws as unconstitutional.

    1. Implying the limp-wristed soyboys doing the daily at YouTube would pack heat. Come on.

      1. Hey even a baby can handle a .22.

        1. A child can handle an AR-15 but a liberal reporter will get PTSD.

      2. Implying the limp-wristed soyboys doing the daily at YouTube would pack heat. Come on.

        They can’t even program for shit, and that’s their JOB. Can’t imagine any of them trying to handle a firearm. Or speak English.

    2. Not carry laws, all laws infringing – – – –

  14. Well said, Doherty.

    “the notion that these sort of public crimes are uniquely a product of something toxic in American masculinity. “

    Fret not, somehow it’s the boyfriend who was shot’s fault. If he hadn’t done something that men do, then she wouldn’t have felt the need to shoot him and two female coworkers. There’s a narrative here somewhere.

    Bad things will always happen, so I remember this quote from Fred Rogers:

    “When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, “Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.”

    Politicians on Twitter are not helpers. I feel that it’s important to specify that.

  15. Repeal 2A and making owning a weapon a capital crime.

    Done and done.

    1. So no kitchen knives? What about rocks and sticks?

        1. Blow guns are illegal? They’re harmless unless poison is applied to the dart.

      1. You’re the reason we can’t live in a nice place.

      2. How are you going to teach your cheating hubby a lesson with rocks and sticks?

        1. Wait till he falls asleep and beat him with rocks and sticks.

          1. For more fun, put the rock into a sock, extra leverage – –

    2. Repeal 2A and making owning a weapon a capital crime. Done and done.

      Perfect for creating a totalitarian regime! Hitler and Stalin would be proud of you!

      1. Sounds exactly like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, even used children to collect all the firearms from citizens; just like Progressive Democrats using students. History repeating itself?

    3. Repeal 2A and making owning a weapon a capital crime.

      This happened in YouTube Headquarters in San Bruno, California, where the Second Amendment is pretty much dead and the punishment for owning a gun is already almost worse than murder.

      1. Well, obviously not enough yet.

        Death is too quick. Better to round them up with the entire extended family and throw them into camps like the North Koreans do. You never hear about mass shooting there do you? Well, only when the government does it and we all know that has to be for a really good reason.

  16. Still no name for the perp?

    (I suppose I can call her the perp since she isn’t going to get an earthly trial, so there’s no need to reserve judgment)

  17. She had a handgun. AR15’s are hard to get in California. That probably saved the lives of the three people shot.

    1. Not really. They just have stupid restrictions like bullet buttons.

      1. Bullet buttons were outlawed as of this year

        1. I was mistaken. Apparently they have been illegal since last year, after the San Bernardino shooting.

    2. At close range, I think I’d rather be shot with a rifle than a shotgun.

      1. Tell that to the kids inn parkland.

        1. Why would the kids at Parkland have a better idea of mark’s preferences?

      2. A shotgun worked pretty well for Aaron Alexis; he was the government contractor cum security clearance he killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard; and it wasn’t some fancy “tactical” model either, just a plain old Remington 870 pump with maybe 5 in the tube magazine, like grand-pappy used to hunt ducks with.

    3. That probably saved the lives of the three people shot

      More likely, her lack of range time and unfamiliarity with how to use a firearm is what saved their lives.

  18. If the motive was a cheating wife, shouldn’t the response be to ban adultery?

  19. Dude,

    Come on… if the interests of local democracy can’t overcome a special interest group with a 2nd amendment fetish when a bunch of elementary kids get shot at Sandy Hook do you really think the tipping point is going to be when a bunch of cucks get shot at YouTube? Get real.

    1. Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot|4.3.18 @ 10:56PM|#
      “Dude,
      Come on… if the interests of local democracy can’t overcome a special interest group with a 2nd amendment fetish when a bunch of elementary kids get shot at Sandy Hook do you really think the tipping point is going to be when a bunch of cucks get shot at YouTube? Get real.”

      Shitbag,
      Come on. If idiot assholes like you can’t manage to amend the Constitution with your gun fetishism, what hope is there for shitbags like you?
      Get real.

    2. if the interests of local democracy can’t overcome a special interest group with a 2nd amendment fetish

      Don’t own a gun, never have, probably never will. I have a fetish for liberty, not guns: gun control is what totalitarian regimes do, and that is why we need to fight it in the US.

      1. Similar to me. I’ve never smoked anything – tobacco nor pot. Never done any drugs. But I don’t see why the Effing government has the authority to tell you what to put or not put in your body. All the problems with illicit drugs come from the government making them illicit.

        Similar to their BS claim about “gateway” drugs. I could easily make the case that my “gateway” experience to firearms dependency happened when I put on the government’s uniform at the tender age of 17. Now they want me to go cold turkey? Nebbah happun GeeAi.

    3. Are democracy made pot illegal. What percentage of progressives respect democracy enough to follow that law?

      Oh, and the 2nd Amendment was made through a democratic process.

    1. And we can have Lara Croft played by a man. Always wanted to see Ryan Gosling wearing her outfit.

      1. When I saw that, Lara Croft came to mind.

        I think it’s silly to have woman play a role generally done by a male, for no other purpose than it’s a woman.

        Maybe Ryan Gosling can play Rosa Parks.

  20. Good article Brian.

  21. is there any political or cultural solution to that problem, except to remind people (and ourselves) to be reasonable about the conclusions jumped to about every hideous public crime, and to be balanced and intelligent in understanding how law or politics could conceivably improve the situation.

    You mean like understanding how every major scientific paper on gun ownership says that lax gun laws result in more firearm deaths?

    1. And communism is always awesome?

      1. Well it does look good on paper.

    2. “You mean like understanding how every major scientific paper on gun ownership says that lax gun laws result in more firearm deaths?”
      You mean like cherry-picking every source to support your idiotic opinions, you tired sack of shit?

    3. And more ramming, stabbing and hanging deaths.

    4. I don’t consider suicides a firearm related death. Or really, accidental discharges, but there’s no way to convince people who’ve never had guns that accidents are not commonplace amongst reasonable people. Guns apparently spontaneously fire and manage to hit and kill people at statistically significant rates.

      1. And that is after they break out of the closet and find the bullets and load themselves, right?

    5. The term is “pseudo-scientific”. The ones I’ve seen have been steaming heaps from the perspective of statistical rigor.

    6. You mean like understanding how every major scientific paper on gun ownership says that lax gun laws result in more firearm deaths?

      I see you’re following in your hero’s footsteps: “if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth”!

      Complete with the oh-so-nice equivocation of “firearm deaths” and “homicides”!

    7. You know what else “reduces firearm deaths”? Placing people into concentration camps or straight jackets. Of course, that’s what turns you on.

  22. You have excellently knocked down a straw man. Congratulations.

    Nobody has claimed that laws can eliminate violence. But, there is evidence both internationally and among the states, that laws can reduce deaths. It’s hard to have statistical evidence that there is an effect on relatively rare incidents like today, but there is strong evidence that, provided there is not a nearby state with much laxer laws (i.e. Chicago), gun laws save lives. Also, having a gun in the house is strongly associated with higher death rates.

    1. Also, restricting semi automatic rifles that are certainly not assault rifles leads to lower mortality in events such as today. California’s restrictions may has saved at least three lives.

      1. Most of these incidents are carried out with handguns even where carbines are legal, and their use is no guarantee of lethality.

        1. Yup. He inky critically injured Congressman Scalise, when the fucking Capitol Police were standing guard. He was airlifted for emergency surgery. If he wasn’t a Congressman, he’d likely have died.

          That kind of shows how effective arming the teachers is, huh?

          From the distance the shooter was at, with a handgun, he’d have no chance of nearly killing two men, injuring others, and holding of the Capitol Police for a ten minute fire fight.

          That’s your example of not assault rifles being less lethal? A guy who caused greater injury, at a greater distance, of asinine being protected by the Capitol Police?

          1. And I’m sure he would have attacked from the exact same distance, in the exact same manner, if he’d had a pistol. Because firearm tactics are perfectly inelastic in the face of restricted weapon selection.

            And given that at least one of the Youtube victims is critical, the injury “spread” is actually closely correlated between the two incidents. You have no evidence that a non-congressman would have recieved less adequate care- mass shootings always have high priority in any trauma ward.

            1. One critical injury, versus two including an airlift.

              Pistols are less effective at that range and have lower velocities.

              1. An SKS has an effective range of 400 meters and a muzzle velocity of 735 m/s.
                A Smith and Wesson M&P has an effective range of 50 meters and muzzle velocity of 370 m/s.

                He would not have been able to cause the damage he did with a pistol.

                1. 1 critical, 1 serious and 1 minor vs. 2 critical and 1 minor, none dead (so far) in either. Split those hairs a little harder.

                  And what part of he would not have attacked from that range if he only had a pistol did you not get.

                  1. So he would have wandered close, With a pistol, and the Capitol Police would have let him?

                    1. Scalise and Mika were critical. Three others, including two police were shot.

                      In this case, without federal police protection, there was one critical, one fair, and one stable.

                    2. Scalise and Mika were critical, and 2 others received minor GSWs. We both misread the page. The other two injuries were not by gunfire. Hardly relevant, given a pistol could just as easily have produced a second minor and two additional non-gun injuries.

                      And for a brief dissertation on what an individual can do to a congressional representative with a handgun by just “wandering close”, see here. There is no reason he could not have found a time and place at which security presence would be as inadequate as it was there.

                    3. To add to this while I’m here: another flaw in Chandler’s argument is the presumption that imminent retaliation from law enforcement played no role in the Youtube incident. Unless the shooter was experiencing remorse, it is unlikely she would have killed herself had she not perceived that police or building security was nearby- and if she was experiencing remorse, than who knows how much more lethal she could have been if she hadn’t been.

                      Which also puts paid to his allusion above to the ostensible uselessness of arming teachers. Driving someone to suicide via armed confrontation or the imminent threat thereof is just as effective a method of neutralization as shooting them yourself- and in that instance, the individual being armed with a gun is a useful alternative means of saving the taxpayer significant courtroom expenditures.

                2. An SKS has an effective range of 400 meters and a muzzle velocity of 735 m/s.
                  A Smith and Wesson M&P has an effective range of 50 meters and muzzle velocity of 370 m/s.

                  An SKS has an internal box magazine of 10 rounds.

                  And congratulations, you showed how well you can do a Google search.

                  1. A carbine with a larger and/or detachable magazine wouldn’t have mattered in the Youtube shooting, especially if she reloaded with a stripper clip. Moreover, aftermarket and 3D printed detachable 30-round magazines and compatible magazine wells render attempts to control magazine size powerless against a prepared shooter.

                    Of course, this individual doesn’t appear to have been competent enough to do any of those things, but then, she doesn’t appear to have been competent enough to do anything else either.

      2. When is the last time a woman picked up an AR15 and shot up a public place? This woman was after her cheating spouse, his girlfriend, and anyone who got in the way. That’s it.

      3. Also, restricting semi automatic rifles that are certainly not assault rifles leads to lower mortality in events such as today. California’s restrictions may has saved at least three lives.

        You know, people with Down’s Syndrome have an excuse for why they’re mentally challenged. What’s yours, fuckwit?

    2. A war on guns would likely greatly increase deaths. The great thing about America is that you can choose where you want to live. And like you said, these events are so rare that it really doesn’t matter where you live. So no, fed regulation wouldn’t help and would probably hurt.

    3. Please cite evidence. Caution. Don’t use ones that exclude non gun deaths to prove only guns cause deaths.

      1. https://tinyurl.com/y9yu2nx2
        Conclusions. Consistent with prior research, this study demonstrated that Connecticut’s handgun permit-to-purchase law was associated with a subsequent reduction in homicide rates. As would be expected if the law drove the reduction, the policy’s effects were only evident for homicides committed with firearms.

        1. To estimate the counterfactual, we used longitudinal data from a weighted combination of comparison states with no PTP law change (henceforth, Connecticut’s synthetic control) identified based on the ability of their prelaw homicide trends and covariates to predict prelaw homicide trends in Connecticut

          IOW a very fancy way of saying we made up a higher number than what actually happened, based on what was happening in states not named ‘Connecticut’.

          Without an actual control group, you have no way of knowing that that reduction wasn’t actually the product of the gun reduction causing an increase in knife murders that caused the latter to stay steady where otherwise it would have dropped. Which is exactly why governing a society according to statistics is so utterly pointless right off the bat: there are no control groups IRL.

          Certainly, arguing that the reduction was chiefly a product of gun laws is absurd given the national 50% reduction at the time. The bulk of that reduction is clearly part of that to at least a large degree.

          And according to GunPolicy, the gun rate went back up after that study was published anyway.

            1. Conflates suicides with homicides, ignores rurality/altitude/latitude, and implies that the Heller decision somehow precipitated a 17% increase in gun murders that didn’t begin until 2015 or so. Real nice article you got there.

                1. I should clarify: gun murder rate rose *relative to non-gun rate* after that study was published. It bottomed out at 50% of overall murders and then climbed back to 66-70% (equal to national average, and roughly equal to what it was in the early 90s before Clinton’s crime bill hit nationally). Your latest link doesn’t mention percentages, though I can see why you wouldn’t have understood what I was trying to say. Overall rate is irrelevant to this discussion, given that CT’s overall reduction was in line with the national overall reduction (+/- 50%) over the same two-decade period.

        2. Even as far as pseudo-science and scientism goes, that’s pretty weak stuff.

        3. There are 50 states, statistical significance is to be expected by random chance one time in 20. Thus you’d expect a couple of states to just randomly show a correlation between gun laws and homicide.

        1. https://tinyurl.com/yax9jbwu

          Using death certificate data available through 2010, the repeal of Missouri’s PTP law was associated with an increase in annual increase in firearm homicides rates of 1.09 per 100,000 (+23%), but was unrelated to changes in non-firearm homicide rates. Using Uniform Crime Reporting data from police through 2012, the law’s repeal was associated with increased annual murders rates of 0.93 per 100,000 (+16%). These estimated effects translate to increases of between 55 and 63 homicides per year in Missouri.

          Do you need more?

          1. https://tinyurl.com/y942frhp

            Effects of neighboring states on crime. Not existing non firearm.

            1. Ugh, excluding.

            2. The suicide rates are just a product of urbanization correlating with both strict gun laws (urban = Democrats) and lower suicidal ideation (less social isolation), and as to the homicide allegation, A, correlation doesn’t equal causation and there are plenty of individual areas like Baltimore and DC that don’t fit with that thesis, and B, there are smart people who disagree with that number.

          2. That appears to be a much better study than your other examples. A few thoughts, however:

            A, presuming that the increase in guns caused some attempts that would otherwise have been carried out with knives to “transition” into gun murders, you would expect to see at least a minor decrease in the non-gun rate. If the non-gun murder rate remained perfectly static, however, than that means the “base rate” of (what would have been) non-gun attempts must have increased- otherwise at least a few non-gun murders would’ve had to have been “poached” to be turned into the surplus gun murders (however large the “lethality multiplier” of guns vs. knives). And if we know the rate was increasing by, say, 4%, why couldn’t it have also been expanding an additional 12%?

            B, there could also have been a psychological effect unrelated to lethality: cheaper guns leading to a bubble of (illogically) more aggressive behavior. This would also explain why the overall rate went back down to normal over the next 2 years (again per GunPolicy) but the gun % increase (70 to 75%) stayed.

            (cont.)

            1. C. Lower down on the GunPolicy page, I found that in the exact same period (2007), there was a 100% increase (13- to 25+) in annual Legal Intervention gun homicides, which stayed that way as far as there records go (2013). (the category includes both police and citizen shootings AFAIK).

              This implies one of two things:

              A, if primarily an increase in police shootings, a 16% increase in murders does not seem likely to explain a 100% increase in LEO response, so this indicates that there was some sort of increase in general criminality at that time,

              or (less likely)

              B, if primarily an increase in shootings by private citizens, perhaps the law increased law-abiding access to guns as well. Given that most DGUs are in response to attempted rape or robbery, this increase might not affect the murder rate; given that most murder victims are themselves violent criminals, this might be a fair trade off. Also realize that DGU fatalities are a small fraction, 2% or fewer, of DGUs, so the increase of “only” 12 lawful deaths would represent hundreds, even thousands of additional DGUs in that scenario. However, most legal interventions nationally are by LEOs, so scenario A is likelier.

              1. Oh dear god, “as far as their records go”. I must be sleep deprived. I hope.

          3. Three more things (finally got around to looking up opposition views, apologies for corpse-fucking in the incredibly unlikely event you come back here):

            1, the graph in this article indicates that the spike in murders began 3 to 4 months before the PTP law was repealed. That graph could be wrong, I suppose, but the burden of proof is on you (person who will probably never come back to this thread) to prove it is.

            2, you’re cherry-picking your PTP stats: Massachusetts had a massive increase in its gun murder rate after passing such a law, and I suspect looking at the national numbers would not reveal any particular correlation other than the general decrease from the early 90s onward. Correlation does not equal causation regardless.

            3, both this and the Connecticut study above come from the Bloomberg School of Public Health, which is heavily funded by Michael Bloomberg and populated by his most reliable ideological allies. Now, as we gun rights advocates are always at pains to note, disqualifying data or arguments because you despise the person(s) making them is a basic logical fallacy. But if you’re thinking to yourself that this is a case of “regal paragons of impartiality” vs. “deplorable troglodytes”, go blow it up your own.

            1. Hmm, on reconsideration the difference in the graph is probably just the year’s data point being placed in the middle of each square. I misread the squares as representing months before. My mistake.

          4. Final point:

            How does the repeal of a handgun PTP law explain a 43% increase in the long gun murder rate?

    4. “but there is strong evidence that, provided there is not a nearby state with much laxer laws (i.e. Chicago), gun laws save lives”
      So is this simply stupidity?
      Sarc?
      Trolling?

    5. Put another way:
      Happy, are you an ignoramus? A troll?
      A knave or a fool?

    6. The VA Tech shooter used two low-power handguns to commit one of the deadliest school shootings ever. The AR users haven’t come close to being as deadly as him.

      1. People who think it’s all about the gun fail to consider the quality of shooter that matters most.

        Or perhaps I should say people with no gun experience.

    7. It’s associated with “living in an isolated, high-altitude, and/or economically depressed area” and “being a criminal who acquired it illegally”. The former explains the suicide and part of the homicide correlation, the latter the rest of the homicide correlation. Rural males are more suicidal in every country on Earth, and the vast majority of gun violence occurs in criminal households that have no statistical relevance to a law-abiding prospective gun owner.

      And if having a neighbor with lax laws is the cause of a high percentage of guns in the murder rate, why doesn’t Canada (25% gun) look like California (70%)? Is it the Night’s Watch keeping American gun dealers from smuggling weapons north of the Wall?

    8. but there is strong evidence that, provided there is not a nearby state with much laxer laws (i.e. Chicago), gun laws save lives

      Bullshit. Gun control laws have never been shown to cause a reduction in violence or homicides.

      Also, having a gun in the house is strongly associated with higher death rates.

      Obviously, when it comes to suicides and gun-related accidents. So what? If I want to commit suicide with a gun, that’s none of the government’s business.

      1. Even for people who do think it’s the government’s business, the evidence that guns increase suicide rates is highly exaggerated. Hanging is 80% as effective as a self-inflicted GSW- and guess what the favored suicide method of rural males is in every country without widespread gun ownership. National rates in the EU/Anglosphere are not distinguishable from that of the US over time, nor do they vary in relation to tightening of gun laws.

  23. Nasim Aghdam. Disgruntled user.

  24. Well, congress could have passed a law stipulating that it is illegal to shoot people on the Youtube campus.
    You mean that wouldn’t have kept her from shooting people?
    I’m shocked, I tell you!

  25. Gee, we seem to be missing the Rev Asshole and Mike; are they attending the Hog lectures on Hitler salutes?

  26. This a NYT feed, so it is liable to collapse at any time requiring payment which they despise as a product of that horrible activity called “trade”:
    “The 2016 Exit Polls Led Us to Misinterpret the 2016 Election”
    […]
    “Crucial disputes over Democratic strategy concerning economic distribution, race and immigration have in large part been based on Election Day exit polls that now appear to have been inaccurate in key ways.
    According to subsequent studies, those polls substantially underestimated the number of Democratic white working-class voters ? many of whom are culturally conservative ? and overestimated the white college-educated Democratic electorate, a far more culturally liberal constituency.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/
    opinion/2016-exit-polls-election.html

    The SHAME of it! Here all the right thinkers had the election called and the electorate turned out to be not sold on the bullshit being peddled.
    And you’ll note that the asshole Edsall is still convinced that he is right and all those folks who don’t agree are “culturally conservative” rather than hip to his bullshit.
    Keep it up, lefties!

    1. When pollsters ask me about politics, I lie on just about every question. No need to give these jerks any data.

      I encourage you to do the same.

  27. How sad are the media that it wasn’t a white man who had voted for trump, but rather a brown lady with a middle eastern name?

    1. It’ll end up on page 6 (the even numbers are the ones you don’t look at)

  28. Let’s see: a crazy Iranian woman eeking out a living off YouTube channels at age 39? I should say that a rational, skill-based immigration policy would have kept her out.

    1. We need immigrants to produce the YouTube content that Americans won’t.

    2. She’s possibly a refugee from the revolution of ’79.

      1. Sure, 39 year old woman left Iran 39 years ago. A most mobile newborn.

    3. But is she a registered democrat? You ignore the more important criteria.

      1. Obviously we need to pass a law making sure registered democrats can’t own guns.

        1. Sensible gun control FTW!

        2. That is actually not a bad idea; what is the political affiliation of the majority of mass shooters anyway?

  29. Congress couldn’t stop her, but maybe the local police could have.

    I just heard that her parents were concerned about the daughter’s growing discontent over Youtube’s apparent censorship over her contents and even alerted the police. She disappeared for a stretched. The cops told them “We’ll keep on eye on it”.

    You can add this to the growing number of incidents that could have been prevented with more thorough involvement of the police and FBI. And we should demand the utterly incompetent and Trump obsessed media to have a conservation about lefty loons who pull this kind of stunt one many times.

    Because when deranged lunatics attempt to assassinate a politician, send bomb threats to the net neutrality votes, ambush police officers and block ambulances, someone should say “Hey, maybe this isn’t how we should deal with things”.

    How long are we going to allow the fringe of the left to get away with using violence and bullying tactics to get their way? They HATE the cops, HATE the insurance companies, HATE big corporations, HATE dissent, HATE white people. They’ll bully some porn star to death on twitter even though she did no gays any wrong any time in her life. Their answer to everything is constant upheaval and anarchy. If you’re policy is “It’s ok to punch a Nazi”, then you would produce lunatics who would shoot up Youttube, in this era where it’s fashionable to hate on big tech because they apparently stole an election.

    1. Bad acts involve an actor with motive, opportunity, and means.

      You should identify actors with motive to do bad acts for intervention, especially if prior bad acts manifest.

      You should deny unknown bad actors opportunity to act. It’s called security.

      I think restricting means is the least effective part of the equation, and can result in black markets that just make another problem.

  30. Why is no one calling for a ban on assualt vegans?
    I say at the least we should regulate high capacity assault vegans.
    Vegans are dangerous, is all I’m sayin!

    1. Veganism & being a member of PeTA are precursors to mental illness.

      1. Indicators, not precursors.

    2. All we’re asking for is some reasonable, common sense vegan laws…

  31. How much longer will we have to wait until Congress acts to prevent the sort of loss of life found in the Hart family crash?

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/201…..al/9610500

    It appears that our lawmakers are mute when it comes to the death of multiple passengers at the hands of the driver.

    End the carnage! Ban cars!

    1. I blame toxic lesbianity.

      1. Is there any other kind?

  32. I keep seeing the words “mass casualty event” regarding this incident. I don’t think people know what “mass” or “casualty” means.

    1. Clearly they do not mean what you think they mean

  33. This will probably get those intrepid SJWs to stop snorting condoms long enough to organize a march, or go on Oprah or something.

    1. They do not organize a march. The marches are pre-planned, and organized by the professional leftists, and waiting for an event. Bewildered minions still have their place in the establishment of a fascist dictatorship.

  34. Random thoughts before the caffeine kicks in.
    proof that gun control does not work
    proof that vegans should be banned, or under commonsense controls
    proof that heterosexual relationships should be banned, or under commonsense controls
    proof that we need immediate regulation of social media banning of weirdos, perhaps permits for posting online
    proof that there should be a 48 hour waiting period before reporting events where a death is involved
    proof any reporting after the event should be required to cite two or more reliable, named, verifiable sources
    proof that even when I ramble incoherently, I still post; see item 4 above

  35. How many more breaking news updates about active shooters do we have to live through?

    Well, we could make it illegal to sensationalize homicides.

  36. I am making $85/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $10 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Jobpost3.tk

  37. I was reported a couple of days ago that the murder rate in London is now greater than NYC. In London, the weapon being used is a knife. This only shows the problem is not the object, but the person using it. It would be easy to kill as many people with a katana as a gun in the right location. The only difference is the killer would expend more energy, but the victims would likely be just as dead. In reality, it is likely few if any would survive this type of attack since the weapon is specifically designed to kill with minimal effort. Think about that….

  38. I can think of one thing that would really help, immediately stop the importation of people with islamic beliefs into the US
    These folks have a serious anger problem. In fact since 9/11 the Islamic faith has engineered 35,000 terrorist events and killed
    untold thousands of innocent people in order to forward their muslim belief system upon the world. Does anybody want this type behavior in their country? Perhaps in a country full of S&M participants, personally speaking, I don’t know any person dumb enough to volunteer to import these industrious bomb builders

  39. I am making $85/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $10 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Jobpost3.tk

  40. Congress could have refused to enact laws infringing on the second amendment.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.