A shooter on Tuesday injured multiple people at YouTube’s headquarters in San Bruno, California, according to police.
San Bruno police confirmed an “active shooter, but the shooting is now believed to be over. Police also confirmed at least one person — a woman whom they believe to be the shooter — was dead, and multiple people were injured.
On and on it goes.
Last edited by Transient on Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Some reports say she shot her boyfriend and then shot herself. Though this doesn't say much for stricter control. California is one of the strictest states in the country. I'm sure this story will disappear quickly. There will be no national march or protesting. Sad indeed.
YourGrandpa wrote:Some reports say she shot her boyfriend and then shot herself. Though this doesn't say much for stricter control. California is one of the strictest states in the country. I'm sure this story will disappear quickly. There will be no national march or protesting. Sad indeed.
Given that I too am sure the story will disappear quickly
Tonight San Bruno police identified the shooter at YouTube's HQ as Nasim Aghdam, a 39-year-old woman from San Diego and said there is no evidence she knew the victims or that they were specifically targeted. While the sources have not confirmed a reason behind the attack, now that her name is known we've found a number of videos from her posted on YouTube and other sites saying that she was a vegan athlete and animal rights activist.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL I can't wait for the news cycle tomorrow.
shaft wrote:It's almost like people might think 17 children killed in a school shooting is more concerning then 1 boyfriend shot by an upset girlfriend.
So mentally disturbed people killing others in gun free zones is only important if it kills multiple targets? Even more important if an AR-15 is used.
Tonight San Bruno police identified the shooter at YouTube's HQ as Nasim Aghdam, a 39-year-old woman from San Diego and said there is no evidence she knew the victims or that they were specifically targeted. While the sources have not confirmed a reason behind the attack, now that her name is known we've found a number of videos from her posted on YouTube and other sites saying that she was a vegan athlete and animal rights activist.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL I can't wait for the news cycle tomorrow.
Apparently she was upset that her YouTube channel got demonetized. Don't worry there won't be much more news on this.
Just goes to show how normal something like this has become in the US. If anything, this should tell you that the gun problem is much worse than you're thinking.
You're naive if you think the media isn't making more out of this because this is somehow "normal". There is nothing normal about this shooting. It doesn't fit the gun control movement's current agenda. That's why the story is gone and no one is talking about it.
I dunno, i would have thought this would last a little longer in the news cycle. The shooter was a chick, which is a novelty in and of itself, but she also had a foreign name and accent. Not to mention a bunch of YouTube videos to pick apart.
Female mass shooter (rare)
Shooter's motive (rare/strange)
Place of shooting (rare/large popular corporation)
Nothing normal or everyday about this shooting. To make it worse for the agenda driven narrative it happened in California. I guess without an AR-15 it's not a news (agenda) worthy shooting.
My point is, the gun control movement has an agenda and shootings aren't important unless they meet a certain criteria. This bullshit story we keep hearing about preventing the loss of life is just a smoke screen to elicit sympathy. They don't care about gun deaths and they don't care about better regulating the distribution of firearms. I'd go as far as saying they don't even care about "gun control". They want to ban the AR-15 type rifles and that's it.
Why care/focus so much on a tool that is responsible for so little (1% of gun related deaths)? All this attention to something that has such an insignificant impact on mortality seems ridiculous. There's no proof that banning AR-15s is going to save any lives. Certainly not enough to justify penalizing millions of citizens. Banning the AR-15 only serves one true purpose and that's to remove the last substantial layer of resistance between the people and it's government.
They don't want all of the guns or even the guns that cause most deaths. They want the AR-15.
This is a weird thread to try make that point. Some lady failing at killing anybody but herself with a pistol vs some kid who mowed down 17 people with an AR-15.
YourGrandpa wrote:Banning the AR-15 only serves one true purpose and that's to remove the last substantial layer of resistance between the people and it's government.
They don't want all of the guns or even the guns that cause most deaths. They want the AR-15.
Sorry... What?
Are you and your gun friends planning some kind of assault rifle fuelled uprising?
YourGrandpa wrote:Banning the AR-15 only serves one true purpose and that's to remove the last substantial layer of resistance between the people and it's government.
They don't want all of the guns or even the guns that cause most deaths. They want the AR-15.
Sorry... What?
Are you and your gun friends planning some kind of assault rifle fuelled uprising?
Hes too much of a pussy. Lets be honest.
Its why he has all the guns. Gotta make up for that fear somehow.
...
