Report of Active Shooter at YouTube HQ
twitter.com
twitter.com
1. In the immediate aftermath, news outlets will get it wrong.
2. Don't trust anonymous sources.
3. Don't trust stories that cite another news outlet as the source of the information.
4. There's almost never a second shooter.
5. Pay attention to the language the media uses.
• “We are getting reports”… could mean anything.
• “We are seeking confirmation”… means they don’t have it.
• “[News outlet] has learned”… means it has a scoop or is going out on limb.
6. Look for news outlets close to the incident.
7. Compare multiple sources.
8. Big news brings out the fakers. And photoshoppers.
9. Beware reflexive retweeting. Some of this is on you.- The shooters were not in The Trenchcoat Mafia (TCM). TCM was a thing that some of their classmates used to refer to themselves. Dylan and Eric were never closely associated with it. The coats they wore during the shooting weren't even trenchcoats, they were dusters.
- They weren't outcasts, and the shooting was revenge against the popular kids. They weren't the most popular kids in school either but that had fairly normal social lives, went to parties on the weekend. If I recall correctly prom had been a few weeks before the shooting and both had gone, with dates.
- The infamous exchange in which they asked a classmate if she believed in god and then shot her when she responded "yes" never happened.
This source seems pretty good: https://www.policeone.com/school-violence/articles/1228405-T...
I first found out about it from this podcast: http://www.socialmatter.net/2017/05/12/myth-20th-century-epi...
[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-columbine-student-killed...
The narrative right after the shooting was that 2 loner goth kids did a horrible thing to get revenge on their bullies.
However they had a circle of friends, and were more focused on becoming infamous than killing anyone in particular. It wasn't an impulsive attack; they planned for a very long time and wanted to outdo Timothy McVeigh
It looks like shooter was a female who is now deceased with 4 or 5 others injured.
This is an excellent way to visualize and surface relevant/interesting network activity. Good work
Not to cast aspersions; I think many of us make use of dark humor to get through the worst times.
If the cacophony current information age may push for a interest in regaining precise language, both as a way imposing a sense of shared consciousness and communicative skill, as a way to regain a sense of meaning and order within. I sincerely hope some of the media embrace similar ideals as something other than an experiment or side project.
> this is as credible as anything else we're hearing.
You're right there. And that's the point: nothing we are hearing is credible. Treat it as such.
The poster (most likely) did not talk directly to the SWAT agent. I was asking for a link to the poster's source containing the SWAT agent's account.
> Unless you have reason to suspect this three-year-old account is suddenly spreading harmful lies, this is as credible as anything else we're hearing.
I don't doubt the poster's good intent, but well-meaning people are just as effective a conduit for the spread of disinformation as the malicious (indeed, they can be even more effective).
Don't doubt for a second that 4Chan and the like are eagerly spreading disinformation as we speak. You don't know the source of this information. Wait for official information before forwarding anything.
Also, the comments on the live YouTube broadcast of 'they deserved it' or 'serves them right' or 'what now, NRA' are fucking repulsive. Seriously, I don't know how to fix this problem, but it makes me so incredibly angry to realize just how few people can empathize with the plight of others.
In this interview Andre Campbell:
1) Advertised his ("Zuckerberg") hospital capabilities (3 times).
2) Answered some tech/medical questions about the wounds/diagnostics.
3) Occasionally smiled [in response to reporters curiosity].
[1] https://surgery.ucsf.edu/faculty/general-surgery/andre-campb...
If he toned it down then such advertisement would be not even noticeable.
It is probably too soon to get reliable information.
[1] https://twitter.com/etharkamal/status/981264092899037185
The Breaking News Consumer's Handbook: Active Shooter Edition
For example at Columbine one of the shooters removed their trenchcoat, which when talking to victims briefly gave the impression of a 3rd shooter.
Good luck YouTube staff, hang in there.
Edit: I definitely support animal welfare, in particular, the Humane Society. PETA is its own brand of crazy though.
(Edit: screenshot for when it is inevitably deleted: https://imgur.com/a/GEtR4)
I get those every single time on tvguide.com on a mobile user agent when using the time/date pulldowns.
salon.com should be considered a compromised site that is unsafe to visit.
And while it's pretty grim to see the process at work, journalists need to report news somehow. This is how we all end up with detailed news reports to read.
Yes. And if you send out information via a venue like Twitter, you might expect responses that are a norm for Twitter.
> And she spams it
@'ing someone alone doth not spam make, particularly on a medium like Twitter where the default expectation is that you have a broad audience and some of them are going to talk back to you when you tweet.
Characterizing that as "spam" is no more accurate than calling a reply on HN spam.
> with a fucking vulture-like request
The gratuitous profanity and vivid imagery associated with the aspersion here do both add a certain punch, but they're even more empty than the charge of spam.
> instead of leaving the line clear for assistance...
Twitter @'s & DMs are solidly asynchronous. "Line clear" doesn't apply. And if you're going to argue "well, sifting & skipping input takes precious time & attention," feel free, I guess, because you're simply arguing that an open Twitter account is the wrong medium for reaching out to people in an emergency.
Journalism.
Source: I'm a YT employee working out of 901 Cherry Ave.
Please, America: sort it out. Politics aside, it hurts to see this stuff happening again and again so needlessly.
Any person with TBI isn't allowed to own any type of gun
Any person with drug or alcohol addiction isn't allowed to own any type of gun
Those three things would cut down the numbers of these types of murders, which tend to be impulsive.
Who is to say what a alcohol addiction entails? etc. etc.
There's no rational debate to be had, since they only really seem to happen with bodies fresh in our minds.
I don't have the right answer, or claim to, but i do know that making these types of decisions in a crisis, rarely works out.
They want to push legislation to restrict the right to own firearms, when it really hasn't been considered that guns themselves might not be the problem.
What makes a "mass shooter"? The gun just makes them a shooter. To fire indiscriminately clearly shows mental issues.
I do agree with the idea that the US needs to fix its mental (and general) healthcare system. It's odd that the majority of the time that argument is used by the same group that wants and has tried to gut any attempts at improving the system.
Did i direct any anger towards any of the students?
I think you misread me. PAC's are circling them this way and that to push messaging on people. That is undeniable. That is child abuse. That is wrong. That is why i am upset. (i'll say that all night, i don't care about karma)
33,636 persons died a year from firearm injuries, ~11200 homicides, ~21190 suicides (2013) [1]
Given these numbers from the CDC, it seems like your statement is incorrect and firearms are a serious issue. Care to address this?
[0] - https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impa...
[1] - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
To me, these are the 4 major pillars of America's gun situation:
1. Widespread availability of guns. The USA has about 330 million guns, or one gun per American. This is more than the number of dogs + cats in the USA. While many Americans own no guns, those Americans who do own guns, often own several.
2. Unhealthy attitudes toward mental health. Much of the country lives with deep insecurities, mental issues, unhealthy stress, and little access to counseling or psychiatry. Further, many live with memories of their loved ones being ripped from their homes, and would rather hide any mental issue in the fear of losing all agency. And our movies and TV shows and YouTube videos are all too quick to capitalize on these fears.
3. Unhealthy attitudes toward guns.
All the other kids with the pumped up kicks / You better run, better run, outrun my gun - Foster The People, Pumped Up Kicks
Instead of helping each other with our insecurities, we sell each other guns. We glorify guns in our stories - the ultimate god, or the ultimate devil, either way a symbol demanding ultimate respect in the narrative. All the world's a stage, right?
4. Culture of exclusivism and elitism that strokes some egos, while creating toxic situations for everyone else. These are much more subtle and hard to identify - ranging from someone cutting you off in traffic, to someone being unsympathetic online or in person, to the complex financial decisions that happen in the back of our heads when we contemplate a doctor visit. These are the impulse to troll a comment thread or dominate a dinner conversation. These are the very impulses that led to the Pickle Rick fiasco and the impending Trump Wall.
[1] - https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/o...
That's because they are always fresh in our minds, it's always a crisis. Mass shootings are the norm in America.
Basically when things like this happen and people think that the government are going to take their guns, a certain type of person will buy more guns, just in case. If there is a gun amnesty or ban then these people will not turn in their guns, it will be these guns that are then sold illegally or stolen and will perpetuate the problem for longer.
Obligatory "not with that attitude".
This is the go to reason that people give, but it just means they haven't tried. No one said it would be cheap or easy but it could be done.
As for gun smuggling, the USA used to be the source of 80% of guns used in crimes in Canada and in Mexico it is 70%.
https://www.quora.com/How-are-guns-smuggled-into-the-United-...
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469...
https://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10771628/gun-violence-america-...
So actually a gun ban in the USA would help both Canada and Mexico with their gun problems. In Mexico many of these guns end up in the hands of the cartels who are much more willing to use them than your usual criminals, and whilst they would still probably be able to obtain weapons they would not be able to do so in the same sort of volume and they would also have trouble locating ammunition.
Does owning a gun cause a nice buzz? Is it a social lubricant that makes everybody at a party happier when you bring it out? Does it have an ancient history that spans across the globe? Does it result in a chemical addiction?
Haven't found a good replacement for alcohol that wasn't more illegal or harmful.
They are an important tool in America's system of checks and balances: Guns are not for shooting deer; guns are for shooting politicians.
The 2nd Amendment is very clear; in fact, it's probably the clearest portion of the entire Constitution:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
In order to protect the freedom of each state from the imposition of some tyranny, it must be possible to gather groups of patriots who are armed with the highest quality equipment; therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
America was born out of armed revolution against a tyrannical government, and Americans are taught that they must be wary of enemies both foreign and domestic. To Americans, the government is at best a dangerous servant, and at worst a tyrannical master.
The gun is known as "The Great Equalizer" for a reason. To restrict gun ownership is to transfer even more power from the weak (the individual) to the strong (the State); that is anathema to those who understand what it actually means to be an American.
Yes. There are many thousands of gun owners who would prefer to kill or be killed than to be disarmed.
Note that this is not a statement of my own stance; it's a statement of my impression of that community after a lifetime of immersion in it.
I have absolutely zero doubt that banning firearms in America would result in far more deaths than it would prevent even with the most optimistic expectation of its efficacy.
The "ban guns" stuff is propaganda for people who are disconnected from the reality of what the United States is. It's weird to see OS advocates miss the connection. They don't realize what side they are on in the war on general purpose printing.
To head off the inevitable "but a bunch of rednecks with guns would never be able to stand up to the military!" That's first-world myopia. Look at what happened when, e.g., Bangladesh became independent from Pakistan. A bunch of farmers did not take on the undivided Pakistani army. Instead, after initial skirmishes, part of the Pakistani army broke off and fought for independence alongside the revolutionaries.
I will never understand Americans' desire to prepare for a tyrannical government, that may with some low probability happen in some unspecified future, but in such a way that it can still be defeated.
When they are simultaneously giving up lots and lots of lifes in violent murder sprees every single year. With absolute certainty and in the present.
Looks like an optimization gone wrong to me.
"How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment: The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened." https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-secon...
Not everyone feels this way, but more than enough people do to make a universal ban completely infeasible. The question right now is if there can even be any federal legislation passed to address issues like gun access to the mentally unstable and people on watchlists, let alone high-capacity magazines or gun modifications or a ban on certain classes of firearms.
- For some of us, they aren't "toys"...your disrespectful tone does nothing to help us debate where the line should be drawn for firearm ownership.
> "Does owning a gun cause a nice buzz? Is it a social lubricant that makes everybody at a party happier when you bring it out? Does it have an ancient history that spans across the globe? Does it result in a chemical addiction?"
- I think your characterization of gun owners and their motivations is shallow and insulting...sure there are your "gun porn" fans that seem to only care about purchasing the latest "tactical" rifle to share pictures of on social media, but many of us who don't live in populated cities, use our rifles and handguns routinely, or at least wouldn't traverse our properties without them on our sides for protection. Turns out predators exist, and the best way to warn off a cougar, coyote, or bear is having protection. I've killed coyotes that would have killed the livestock that feed my family.
Plus you are choosing one example were prohibition failed, what about when it works, particularly with regard to guns and reducing the incidence of mass shootigs? You choose to ignore the real world evidence that shows it works because it doesn't fit with your political stance.
I don't mind, but be honest with yourself that that is what you are doing.
Mexico doesn’t mass produce enough guns to feed the American market in any significant way, and their gun laws are much more strict than ours. It’s the other way around: the bad guys in Mexico get most of our guns from us, the gun shops in the USA with the highest sales are near the border.
I'm serious, but the reason I have used from your comment is taking your assumptions as true. I'm all for the wall for a different reason; countries must control their borders or the people living there are not sovereign.
I have been to Mexico a few times (it's an awesome place!), right near the border, and much further south, but I did not feel it was a safe place. I know enough people with stories that I would rather not try to tell here. In Mexico, only the criminals and police are armed. Cross the border to the US, and volla, we all are equals. You can watch nearly endless TY* of cartel shootouts in Mexico (on residential streets), that stuff is practically impossible here, the elderly person down the street has weapons capable of hitting a body 200+ meters away. Mexico will be much safer when it's not just the criminals in the general population who can defend themselves.
It's going to be an interesting conversation when it's only US citizens that have DRM-free DMLS systems.
*I didn't check today, but I bet the memory hole is working on that...
Mental health, social services, youth and gang intervention have been underfunded.
In 1997, it had a rate of 1.733:100,000, and by 2007, 1.2.
In 1997, the US had a rate of 6.678:100,000, and by 2007, 5.7.
We had a lot more room for improvement. And you're still nearly five times more likely to be murdered in the US than Australia.
But hey, it says a whole lot about the narrative you'd like to push when you want to focus on that delta. "America got safer faster! (Just ignore the fact it was very far worse and still far less safe!)".
I think you're likely to find the homicide rate asymptotically approaches zero, and as such it would be hard for Australia to improve at the same rate as the US. I'm not sure what correlation you can show to "firearm control doesn't work" from that.
Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?end=2015...
It seems weird to say U.S. dropped "more" with these numbers.
So what you're supposed to believe is that a gun confiscation that was over by 1997 was responsible for a long-term decline in homicides that did not start until 2002, which coincided with a sustained period of guns per capita returning toward pre-confiscation levels.
It went up, from 315, to 342.
A ten percent increase in homicides in the US is notable. The same in a population The size of the above falls within the realm of statistically significant.
You're really drawing conclusions the data doesn't support.
The gun buyback isn’t something you’d expect to have a delayed impact on homicides. Certain weapons were banned, they were confiscated, and the program was over by 1997. Those guns could not be used to kill people. The number of guns started to go back up right after, as well.
But hey, let's talk firearm homicides.
In the US, 1997, firearm homicides were 6.24:100,000, and in 20145, 3.5:100,000, a 44 per cent reduction.
In Australia, 1997, firearm homicides were 0.56:100,000, and in 2016, 0.18:100,000, a 67 per cent reduction.
So where were we again?
Sources: https://www.allcountries.org/gun_deaths_by_country.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
Literally the only thing that the US did better in is "more, absolute" reduction in homicide (firearm and other).
Your initial precedent, that gun control made things relatively -worse- in Australia is only borne out by the most contorted perspective on numbers, and not anything relative or comparable between the two.
Right. So when a gun ban causes gang members to kill each other with knives instead, you've taken away everyone's civil rights without actually preventing any deaths. Which is why the only intellectually honest thing to do is to look at all homicides.
> Either way, as a percentage, homicides in Australia went down after the gun buyback, more than in the US, either by firearm or not.
The comparison is highly sensitive to the choice of begin/end date. For example, if you look at the 5-year impact of Australia's gun buyback (1997-2002), the U.S. rate went down about 18% while the Australia rate actually went up 10%.
It's important not to overstate what our actual laws are. We have provisions for agriculture, sport, hunting, security guards, etc. and these provisions are not very hard to navigate.
If they are super rare, you'd never know if it was the ban or just chance.
Oh and guns weren't banned in Australia, just restricted. Plenty of guns still there.
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)01030-X/fulltext Check out Table 4
To me, it's fine enough if people want to own guns but it would be much better if advocates did it without peddling factual distortions like this.
Midwest states have lower gun homicide rates than the many European countries despite having the highest gun ownership rates in the US.
The mass shootings that get media attention are a drop in the bucket compared to daily inner city gang violence that jacks up US gun stats. And taking guns from law abiding citizens isn't going to stop gangs from shooting each other.
(0.2 + 0.2 + 0.3 + 0.5 + 0.1 + 0.2 + 0.3 + 0.2 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.4 + 0.3 + 0.0 + 0.2 + 0.2 + 0.0 + 0.5 + 0.0 + 0.5 + 0.2 + 0.1 + 0.2 + 0.0) / 23 = 0.208
There is not a single U.S. state midwestern or otherwise that has a lower per capita gun homicide rate than that average. The two lowest are Vermont (0.3) and New Hampshire (0.4), neither of which are in the midwest. The closest midwestern state is North Dakota at (0.6) The data also shows there are plenty of midwestern states with per capita gun homicide rates well above 1. Your claim is incorrect.
It may be worth keeping perspective that over 10,000 people in the U.S. died from drunk driving in 2016.
School/workplace shootings are scary, but if we really care about saving the most lives, we have much bigger fish to fry.
If you embed fear into peoples heart that their kids or family might get killed because of someone else when they are most vulnerable (schools, work place - places where we think we are safe) it is a different ball game.
If you see shootings in airports or malls, it ruins it for everyone.
Source: an immigrant from a country where bombings in city centres were part of daily life at some point.
> but if we really care about saving the most lives, we have much bigger fish to fry.
Given that "over 10,000 people" died from firearms (where that number is higher than the drunk driving number), I'm not sure how you figure this.
It sounds like a too-calm euphemism that an interest group thought up.
But basically, it's a law enforcement term for someone looking to randomly kill as many people as possible, without a specific victim. So, no need for hysterics – it's just a police term.
https://www.colorado.edu/today/2016/10/06/incident-terminolo...
And in that case referred to in that story it was a crazy person with a machete.
So is 'Saw'. Doesn't make it true.
Usually it isn’t.
Qualified people with guns (ideally).
I don't care about your credentials; if you have actual training, that's what matters. Your average civilian has almost no training, therefore law enforcement is the preferred response. Can you prove training without credentials? Certainly, but we're not all going to the range together to see who we are and aren't going to trust to respond to active shooters.
This may not be true if you're right there and SWAT is 5 minutes away.
However, overall, it would be terrible policy because such a proliferation of arms in public would result in all kinds of extra mass shootings, suicides, homicides, accidents, etc. that would cause more deaths than any reduction in the lethality of a given mass shooting.
I don't think you've thought this through. You hear one, then two gun shots coming from two different people in a plaza with a bunch of people. Who's the real attacker?
Say you actually witnessed it, what about the 50 other people around you who now see you brandishing and firing a gun? Are you now the threat?
If everyone is shooting back at everyone else, the death toll will be WAY higher than just ducking and hiding with only one shooter. The real threat is clear in this scenario. The police know who to take down.
It's probably much easier, if you count the deaths you cause and not just those from bullets you fire. When there is one person shooting, there are myriad reports from eyewitnesses with different numbers and descriptions of the shooters. When you've got multiple people shooting you are going to have multiple people perceiving who started the shooting differently.
The idea that we just need to arm everyone pretty much guarantees that most people won't actually meet that standard. It goes all kinds of bad places.
The other thing is you don't find your way to a more peaceful civil climate by escalating the violence. That's so very much "Going to war to protect the peace is like fucking to preserve virginity."
We need to be fostering a more civil climate where Americans are better cared for. That's the real solution here. We need to be fixing healthcare and housing and the extremes of poverty in this country that are appalling for a first world country.
And I think that most of the discussions of gun violence overlook that larger reality and see it is as not relevant. But there are reasons people go postal here, and it isn't because a side effect of gun ownership is insanity.
This is by no means an "edge-case" if you live in a rural area. "Sound policy" within a heavily urbanized area may be unworkable elsewhere.
> Can't base sound policy at scale on the stars aligning
"Failing to scale" here would be to allow urban population centers to dictate policy that would be untenable in other areas of the country.
_You_ don't want to harm anyone else, you only want to protect yourself (and possibly others). They have no such compunction.
Being able to put a few downrange with a Glock is not an active shooter situation, and honestly, as a first responder, most people in such situations find themselves vomiting, urinating in terror (and reasonably so).
Put it another way, in that it actually happened: If you're duty sworn to act, and don't, are you partly responsible for further deaths? See: The on-campus resource officer for a recent highschool shooting who did hide.
I for one support a clear division between who is responsible for general civilian safety. I draw the line at buckling my seatbelt and not drinking cleaning product - beyond that, I don't think I should be in charge of making sure I don't get shot, or smashed into by a drunk driver, or ensuring the train I get on doesn't derail. I want my government to take care of that and I'm happy to pay for it.
Legally, no. See Warren v DC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
> the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists
If you want to “happily pay for” your own protection, you should hire your own bodyguard. I don’t want my taxes to go to your protection just because you want the government to solve all your problems.
If your family member was murdered while you were out, do you have the expertise to find out who did it and meter justice?
Do you have the resources to guarantee mutually assured destruction with another community?
If my family was murdered while I was out, then by definition I cannot defend them. The law system will take care of it presumably, but that is not "defense", it is post-fact "justice."
Unclear what your mutually destruction comment was.
Your family is de-facto defended from murder because it is harder to commit murder and get away with it when the FBI exists, generating criminal investigation resources and distributing them among local police detectives. Your taxes pay for this and are protecting you right now. The very existence of a justice system is preventing crime. Not all crime, obviously, but a great deal. The remainder is more a socioeconomic failure of this country than a justice system failure (or, a justice system failure in that the war on drugs is policy failure enforced by the justice system).
Mutually assured destruction is more a macro-comment. Why aren't hordes of Russian barbarians coming over the hill? Because the US exerts its sovereignty within its borders. Why doesn't an organized community (government) challenge that? Because both communities would be vaporized.
Since we're on the subject, your taxes are a much cheaper way to get clean water, medicine that you are guaranteed actually contains the active ingredients you're looking for, food that won't poison you, and ensure that the city upriver doesn't dump toxic waste into the river. If you wanted to "take care of those problems yourself," you'd be running around like a headless chicken. Communitize, instead.
The average gun owner (hell, the average police officer probably) is in no way prepared for an active shooting situation. It's a fantasy to think you'd be the one to stop it.
They talk tough, but I have zero confidence in their ability to add the good kind of violence to a violent situation. Sooooooo overconfident, smh.
This is just a result of America’s individualist society. If we were collectivists we would ban guns for the good of society. But we’re not, and we never will be. We’re rugged individualists, for better or worse, and some people actively vote for things that make their lives worse just to uphold that value. It’s what America was built on. I don’t see a problem with it. It’s just a different way of life.
https://polisen.se/lagar-och-regler/vapen-regler-och-tillsta...
I am not sure individualism and freedom are good enough explanations.
Citizens shooting back in a crisis only makes things worse, how do you know who is the real shooter now?
Have you ever been in a shooting situation? If you are not trained for it it is terrifying and it is unlikely you will make a positive difference.
Your comment would be fine without the first paragraph.
Also this was in a response to a building where I have many friends was attacked by an active shooter.
I do disagree with your conclusions that it must stay this way, because I feel that on the gun issue, the resulting policies are leading to more guns in unqualified hands and more violence. I think there is space for rugged individualism and sane gun ownership requirements.
Having gun-free zones exist alongside available firearms has repeatedly resulted in mass shooters picking the least armed location. The eventual Pulse shooter scoped out the Disney parks but was discouraged by the guards. The presence of a few qualified people carrying is a deterrent that we shouldn't rule out, and it's not worth staffing police on every block like a police state.
Perhaps a better combination might be legislation for sane gun ownership requirements combined with legislation limiting the proliferation of gun-free zones. That way vetted gun owners wouldn't be unarmed in the places in their community that they care about when they come up against a killer with no regard for rules.
But we must respect the decision of the policeman in Florida who found himself outgunned not to confront the shooter, first responders are trained not to be heroes and to keep their life first priority.
Okay, while attempting to be as neutral and objective as possible, Trump is an obese geriatric. He's decently tall, 6' or so. But that's about it.
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bin...
But before playing into your hand further: It doesn't seem odd that most people are not mentally/physically capable of dealing properly with an active shooter/combat situation and therefor don't feel that they would/should be the person to deal with it. Gonna make the bold assumption that most people's job descriptions don't involve annual firearm training, and they would therefor feel more comfortable with police dealing with these sort of situations. Which is the point other sane humans are trying to make before you deride the conversation for douchery.
Get your facts straight. Hint: the large majority do abide by gun laws in their purchase.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-s...
(Though I suppose that's not "gun laws" that they're breaking, but rather laws against murder.)
Nobody has ever successfully used a shooting situation with victims as an opportunity to convince other people to own and carry firearms when going to school, work, or church.
All it does is piss people off, make gun enthusiasts look bad, and start up flamewars online.
If you want to convince other people of the merits of gun ownership, the time and place to do that is offline, with friends, at your favorite range or other safe shooting area.
See all the innocent bystanders shot by police who miss the alleged offender.
https://www.popehat.com/2013/12/05/nypd-baby-you-know-we-lov...
Lower income urban voters tend to be split on gun control depending on the type. There's little support there for anything that would make it more costly or time consuming for someone without a record of violent crime to buy a firearm.
A gun is a weapon, not armor.
We had a shooter situation at my apartment complex not long ago and the police were on scene before I had time to unlock my pistol.
It's both funny and sad that you think that being a SWAT member boils down to "here is a gun".
Not just "people with guns".
People with guns that will take down anyone else brandishing a gun in that area. Still think it's a good idea to have a gun in this situation?
People committing violence choose soft targets over hard ones when they can.
There is a better way, other countries have figured it out already.
(Edit: nevermind, I guess you’re talking about Australia and not Europe)
I'm Australian.
-- Fred Rogers
Even gallows humor requires some amount of time to pass before it's socially acceptable.
No, that doesn't work for gallows humor. Gallows humor requires that you be on the (at least metaphorical) gallows. Making fun of someone else who is in a desperate or hopeless situation when you are safely on the sidelines isn't gallows humor.
Edit: Not sure why people are down voting my comment. America has a gun violence problem[1].
[1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/u...
https://www.abc15.com/news/data/mass-shootings-in-the-us-whe...
(terrible music choice for that autoplaying video).
In 2017 there were over 340 mass shootings. The US has nearly one mass shooting per day.
We will eventually have another big mass shooting, but if we have only one every 30 years then I'd say we've done the right thing with guns.
I'm not trying to tell your country what to do. Just adding my perspective.
The most recent prominent mass shooting appears to be the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis.
If you use the number of people killed (excluding the perpetrator), then depending on how medical care goes, the YouTube shooting today might involve 0 deaths. Nonetheless, it reasonably appears to be considered a "mass shooting".
"There doesn't seem to be an official definition for a "mass shooting" in the United States, but according to the Gun Violence Archive, a mass shooting is described as four or more individuals being shot or killed in the same general time and location."
So, that doesn't specifically say that the shootings are by the same person or even related. It would include any given day in Chicago, which had on average 7 shootings per day in 2017[1]. Yet nobody was really holding rallies or protests about that, because it's mostly inner city gang-related shootings, and Chicago is already heavily gun-controlled which doesn't support the narrative that we need more laws regarding guns in order to protect the children.
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chicago-sees-drop-in-homicides-...
It's baffling that these threads always have people saying "sure, a bunch of people got shot and some of them died but that's not gun violence".
Rather than this ever-present implication to myopically focus on what happens to be the easiest tool for killing people, perhaps we should be looking at the structures that cause individuals the intense stress and alienation that pushes them to rampage.
In addition to the media that provides the validation and glory for doing so, of course.
It is very unlikely Congress would ever repeal freedom of religion as expressed in the First Amendment.
I do not mean to condescend, but given your willingness to protect people from violence by preventing them from assembling in the first place, it might be useful for you to think about why the Founding Fathers thought to compose the First Amendment using specifically these words:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
https://www.wired.com/story/pop-up-mobile-ads-surge-as-sites...
I don't know why the ad platforms even allow custom JavaScript...
And it isn't that far removed from what happened to Podesta or whatever. They could make it a case that it is important to the state.