Active shooter at Youtube headquaters

a reply to: Nyiah

I find it stupid that a pacifying plant is illegal, but a weapon that can harm numerous people in a short period is substantially easier from a legal standpoint to get and KEEP.

Say that again.

The gun laws of California[3][4] are some of the most restrictive in the United States. A 5-year Firearm Safety Certificate, obtained by paying a $25 fee, submission of applicant data to the state, and passing a written test proctored by a DOJ Certified Instructor, is required for the sale, delivery, loan, or transfer of any firearm.[5][6] Handguns sold by dealers must be "California legal" by being listed on the state's Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale.[7] This roster, which requires handgun manufacturers to pay a fee and submit specific models for safety testing, has become progressively more stringent over time and is currently the subject of a federal civil rights lawsuit on the basis that it is a de facto ban on new handgun models.[8] Private sales of firearms must be done through a licensed dealer. All firearm sales are recorded by the state, and have a ten-day waiting period. Unlike most other states, California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.[1][not in citation given] The California Supreme Court has maintained that most of California's restrictive gun laws are constitutional, because the state's constitution does not explicitly guarantee private citizens the right to purchase, possess, or carry firearms.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Only if your talking accidental shootings maybe...

If you mean school shootings the gun is not the common factor...

The fact the shooter either presently or recently attended the school he attacked is..


That is the only truely common thread I see if we are talking these mass shooting attacks.

They certainly haven’t all used the same guns..

I bet you could make a case that assault rifles can mathematically be proven to be more effective at mass shootings and have a higher per shooting rate.

as far as I can tell it is one woman shooter and she killed herself with her gun...I haven't heard the reason for the shooting..I came in late to the story and this thread...the only other thing..someone mentioned possible domestic abuse but no details....they are interviewing the workers....will come back if they say more info...started in the patio area

originally posted by: CynConcepts
Seriously? Weed? Abortion? Religion? Gun rights? Anitifa? Etc? WTH? I came in late and kept reading from pg 1 hoping to find out what the real facts are regarding this desperate situation? What is happening? Was it simply a lovers or worker dispute gone bad? Was it a more calculated impersonal issue? What I found is too many ATSers rambling off on multiple immaterial personal perspective issues that should have no place in a breaking news thread!
Make your own offshoot threads in the mud pit if you want to make muddies and throw them regarding this!

Has there been any new news on whether it was one lone woman? Any other confirmation on the tweets of a possible male in armor? Did she arrived dressed in armor and try to exit as a innocent woman? Or was this a multiple shooter situation?

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Nyiah
Utterly amazing how everyone completely missed OSOTC's point. Which was that it's easier to obtain a legal weapon than a legal joint in AL. The difference being that the weapon is legal, while the innocuous plant is not. How TF does someone so willfully miss that one? I mean, like RIGHT over heads, the breeze & whizzing sounds and all.

Oh I dunno, could have something to do with the fact that's not what he said. In the original post on that subject, he made no mention of the legality of either. Further he suggested if people could get weed easier there might be less violence, which actually goes against the claim that he was only talking about the irony that it's not legal. People can get weed easy, it's just not legal.

That is not how I nor most others think of cannabis by default. I interpreted his comment by the default view I have, being that illegal pot, while not hard to come by if you commit to sussing out sources, is not in fact easier to get than filling out the paperwork for a gun purchase. Like him, I find it stupid that a pacifying plant is illegal, but a weapon that can harm numerous people in a short period is substantially easier from a legal standpoint to get and KEEP.

And he is correct, IMO, that physical violence would likely reduce notably if it were legal across the board. When have you ever known a stoner to get blitzed & violent, rather than settling for raiding a cupboard/fridge or fall asleep?

I didn't try to interpret it at all, I just read what he said, one is easier to get than the other. He made no mention of the legality. It looked like another example in the long line of baseless "it's easier to get a gun than [insert something that it is, in fact, actually easier to get than a gun]" claims from the gun control lobby. If he was specifically talking about the legality comparison, perhaps he should've said that. I'm not responsible for the failure of other posters to say what they mean.

a reply to: ketsuko

I am not licensed to carry a gun in my state. So if I felt I needed one immediately, it would have to be illegal and would not be difficult at all.

a reply to: face23785

Actually quite early on I did actually say legally.

It’s rather telling how you need spoon fed all of this...

a reply to: GuidedKill

Someone probably had enough of all the damn adverts.

He didn't have a gun, but he wishes he did:



Just taking a wild guess you won't be seeing this clip played on CNN much.

a reply to: Nyiah

I did as well that's why I asked for clarification, but those 2 words (legal,illegal) do in fact reverse the answer. Context is key when you put forth a debate topic.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Don't be ignorant & naive though people...

This has nothing to do with guns... If she didn't have such easy access to a gun, then she would've just found another way to create the same kind of chaos... like with a shoe lace or coat hanger, something...

What else do you want? Ban and confiscate?

I don't really "want" anything, tbh. Its not my fight... one way or the other.

I'm just a simple spectator...

Right, except you're passive-aggressively making snarky comments about how we're doing something wrong. I'm curious to know your suggestion about what California could have done to stop this. Or were you just talking out of your ass because you have no idea what California's gun laws are and don't know enough about the subject to offer a potential solution?

I think theirs an unhealthy gun culture in the US, which is fuelled by an irrational paranoid belief that theirs a "bad guy" behind every corner who wants to kill you... just because.

But at this stage, I doubt any law could eliminate this indoctrinated mentality and reduce gun crime...So just carry on... like I already said, I'm just a spectator.

Just my personal opinion.

originally posted by: face23785
He didn't have a gun, but he wishes he did:

Just taking a wild guess you won't be seeing this clip played on CNN much.

"The mainstream media is bought and paid for except for FOX, they're real news!"

I think many here needs to step away and make a nice cup of tea.
It is a horrid tragedy and there is no point getting banned because of different opinions.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: face23785

Actually quite early on I did actually say legally.

It’s rather telling how you need spoon fed all of this...

Oh the irony:

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: yuppa

Words are weapons? That's what I was missing that made ME look stupid? What are you, twelve?

Apparently you missed where i said something else. 6th post from the bottom. can you not read between the lines?

Dude this thread is already 11pages long with 230 posts from multiple memebers.

Sorry to break this too you but your posts are just not interesting enough to keep track off. Nor do they really make much sense

Double standard much? I read the first 3 posts you made about it and all 3 you doubled down on your original claim and only in the 3rd did you even mention the legality of buying a gun. You still didn't mention the legality of weed, you just insinuated it was harder to get than a gun. In later posts you it looks more like you backtracked to that when you got told you were wrong. But whatever you need to tell yourself. I'm moving on.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

What's so unhealthy about it?

How is it any different than knives,baseball cards,cars,motorcycles and anything else a person owns?

That so called gun culture( that insult). That 99.9% of Americans do nothing wrong.

So why try to manufacture them in to villains in this little story.

The facts California that has this country most gun phobic laws approved the person that did the deed.

The liability for that event doesn't fall on me or anyone else in the country.

It doesn't even fall on state or federal authorities.

It falls on the person that went to Youtube and shot 4 people.

a reply to: RomeByFire

4 injured, one critical...someone listed things that are causing people to do this....how about the internet..they pull a shooting and 10 minutes later the whole country knows about it..instant imfamy,,,it feeds into this

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: face23785
He didn't have a gun, but he wishes he did:

Just taking a wild guess you won't be seeing this clip played on CNN much.

"The mainstream media is bought and paid for except for FOX, they're real news!"

I didn't even notice the outlet. It's a live interview. You get to hear exactly what he said. Remember who you think is real news when no other outlet plays that interview though.