Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWoman who allegedly carried out YouTube shooting is identified by police
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/04/03/youtube-shooter-identified-as-nasim-aghdam.htmlThe person who allegedly shot at least three people at YouTube's campus on Tuesday afternoon has been identified as Nasim Najafi Aghdam, according to senior law enforcement officials.
Police responded to YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California, around 1 p.m. local time on Tuesday. Approximately 1,100 people work in the complex, which is about 20 miles away from Google's main campus in Mountain View.
The woman, who was 39 years old, is believed to have carried out the attack because of a domestic dispute, officials said. The authorities said terrorism did not appear to be a motive at this time.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 2519 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Woman who allegedly carried out YouTube shooting is identified by police (Original Post)
sinkingfeeling
Apr 2018
OP
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)1. Very interesting
Aghdam, who authorities say last lived in the San Diego area, had previously claimed in a video that YouTube "discriminated and filtered" her content, according to NBC Bay Area.
greyl
(22,990 posts)2. More here:
Aghdam was armed with a handgun when she walked into the YouTube offices in San Bruno and opened fire, causing a panic. She shot three people before taking her own life by shooting herself in the head.
A number of outlets reported that Aghdam, a resident of Southern California, had a prolific presence on YouTube.
In a harrowing video posted in January 2017 which you can watch above she claims YouTube discriminated and filtered her videos.
Aghdams video links to a website, Nasimesabz.com, on which she rails against YouTube for restricting her videos: Youtube filtered my channels to keep them from getting views! one post on the website reads.
https://www.mediaite.com/online/youtube-shooter-identified-as-nasim-aghdam/
A number of outlets reported that Aghdam, a resident of Southern California, had a prolific presence on YouTube.
In a harrowing video posted in January 2017 which you can watch above she claims YouTube discriminated and filtered her videos.
Aghdams video links to a website, Nasimesabz.com, on which she rails against YouTube for restricting her videos: Youtube filtered my channels to keep them from getting views! one post on the website reads.
https://www.mediaite.com/online/youtube-shooter-identified-as-nasim-aghdam/
And here: https://www.facebook.com/Nasime-Sabz-Ye%C5%9Fil-Nasim-1416014232025109/
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)3. Doesnt sound like a "domestic dispute" to me...
rainin
(3,011 posts)4. Interesting video. I wonder why YT age-restricted her video. n/t
Sancho
(9,070 posts)5. People Control, Not Gun Control
This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
For those who want to argue legality, please reference: The Second Amendment: A Biography by Michael Waldman