Over

[ZombieLivesMatter]

Not much humanity on display. Seems that You Tube employees are fair game, because of the Corporate policies. I don't get the joke, except in the end the jokes really is on us gun owners. Each one of these tragedies just puts more and more fence sitters in the other camp. Here we are joking about it? So much for demonstrating to the other side who we really are.

Not one of those quotes you posted above are Calgunners are finding "glee" in the homicides, that's what I was commenting on. But I get the jist of where you're trying to go, that it's distateful in general to joke about it, though it seems those joking above are mostly about the murderer herself.
But make no mistake, not only would the antis joke about situations like shootings, they will use it for their personal agenda and use kids as well.

[bubbapug1]

An animal rights wack job...not some enraged 2A militant, but a veggie peta freak has the balls to shoot up youtube. What's that really say about gun owners versus liberals??

You can see she was getting her panties all wound tight, typical tunnel vision of a paranoid schizophrenic or something.

And get this...the police were tipped off she had gone off the reservation by her dad, and they actually stopped and questioned her this morning. So with all our bs mental health restraining order laws and assault weapon bs bans the police still can't stop someone they know is up to murder. The only people controlled by gun laws are lawful gun owners. And the crazies are ruining our rights.

Yea...more laws are going to help...not. Thank you ACLU.thank u jerry brown and newscum

[Deedle]

Not much humanity on display. Seems that You Tube employees are fair game, because of the Corporate policies.

I wouldn't say that, but they are surely more vulnerable because of the policies in place at the employment they selected. If you can't see the irony then I think that's you.

[sarbiker]

All the reports say that one of the victims was her boyfriend, so yes, it was "domestic violence". It was also "workplace violence" and maybe even, "animal rights violence".

How can you say that you don't think it was domestic violence? I'm just wondering what else it could be called then?

Abu did you go to the link? She was from SoCal and had a beef with YouTube over censoring and demonetizing her vids. There is no mention of a BF in the story..!!

Here is another link - parents in SoCal reported her missing:

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Gunshots-Youtube-Office-San-Bruno-478682453.html

[Waffleobill]

No AR, no story here.

[KT_SF]

Dang. She wasn't too bad looking, borderline hot.

I had a Persian girlfriend for a while; was also wacko, but smokin' hot!

"Crazy in the head, crazy in bed."

But seriously, this one doesn't fit the anti-gunners' narrative, so expect the story to get dropped quickly by the liberal/progressive mainstream media.

An attractive, young, hip, Persian PETA-type vegan female toting a gun - that's the modern version of Bonnie Parker (of Bonnie and Clyde fame), and likely to encourage Millennials to embrace guns as cool and anti-establishment.

KT

[IVC]

This is the kind of useless speculation that gets gun owners labeled as white supremacist racists with zero empathy.

Even Colion Noir is labeled "white supremacist racist" with the rest of the NRA. It has nothing to do with what we say, how we look or our local engagement in firearm education.

Maybe, just maybe, it's because the other side has an... um... agenda?

[IVC]

All the gleeful posts about a homicide are disturbing. Seems like most of the posts in this thread are manufactured reasons to justify the shooting.

Just because there is not much sympathy for an organization that is openly anti gun and attacking our civil rights doesn't mean that anyone is "justifying the shooting" (or attempting to). There is clearly no justification and it's the innocent people who were injured.

Compare to when the other side attacked a father who has just lost his daughter in Parkland shooting simply because he was pro-gun. They told him that his daughter deserved to die and that he had blood on his hands. It was somehow his responsibility not only that his daughter dies, but that the rest of the kids died too.

With the state of the union today, the least of our concern should be trying to appease the other side or worry that anything we say will make them think worse of us.

[onelonehorseman]

Just because there is not much sympathy for an organization that is openly anti gun and attacking our civil rights doesn't mean that anyone is "justifying the shooting" (or attempting to). There is clearly no justification and it's the innocent people who were injured.

Compare to when the other side attacked a father who has just lost his daughter in Parkland shooting simply because he was pro-gun. They told him that his daughter deserved to die and that he had blood on his hands. It was somehow his responsibility not only that his daughter dies, but that the rest of the kids died too.

With the state of the union today, the least of our concern should be trying to appease the other side or worry that anything we say will make them think worse of us.

Amen!

[IVC]

This. Nothing has pushed me further towards the dark side than gun forums. There be some seriously screwed up people on them.

There are several problems with your statement.

First, this forum is about civil rights. I know that the other side, and what they consider "polite society," scoff at the concept of gun rights being civil rights, but they cannot change facts even if they try to change the history. Since this is a civil rights struggle, you only have two options: support it regardless of how people look or make you feel, or recognize that you are against civil rights.

Second, if your opinion on an issue is based on your perception of the people who are fighting alongside you, you are not much of an ally or principled person. For example, slavery was wrong because slaves were people, not because slaves were nice people or agreeable people. Supporting slavery under the pretext of "those slaves are uneducated and cannot function outside plantations" would be akin to going to the other side on gun rights because some gun owners are less-than-refined-for-your-taste.

[IVC]

YouTube attack reminds me of Charlie Hebdo. An organization that is attacking people by claiming the right to do so, being completely unprepared for the real life consequences.

It's ironic that neither of the two organizations understands that laws don't protect them, they only specify the consequences for those who choose to break the laws. In case of CH, the law against guns and murder was broken and the perpetrators paid the price, so the justice was technically served as intended by the organized society.

Similarly, YouTube wants all the extra gun laws, they want AWB (which we have in CA), universal background checks (which we have in CA), magazine limits (which we have). These laws are supposed to protect us so well in CA that we can ignore our safety and can pretend that nothing bad will happen. Except, people can choose to break the law in exchange for the consequences. In this case, the perpetrator paid with her life, so the justice was served and the law actually worked as intended - consequences for breaking it.

Funny how ignorance works up until the moment that one has to face the consequences of the own ignorance. Don't want guns at YT? Don't have guns. Don't want armed security? Don't have armed security. Don't want metal detectors? Don't have metal detectors. Want to blame the NRA? Blame the NRA. However, in the end, it's just "she broke the law and paid the price, collateral damage being just collateral damage."

[Jimi Jah]

How did we let that Persian muzzy into this country in the first place?

[Abu Riyah]

Abu did you go to the link? She was from SoCal and had a beef with YouTube over censoring and demonetizing her vids. There is no mention of a BF in the story..!!

Here is another link - parents in SoCal reported her missing:

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...478682453.html

No mention of a BF in that story, but most of the earliest reporting did speak about a BF being one of the victims. The final line in the story at your original link:

Law enforcement officials say they believe that the motive behind the shooting is a domestic-related dispute.

I was just wondering what made you think it was not domestic violence when virtually all reporting was supporting that theory at the time.

The latest reporting is now saying that there was no BF involved and that no one at the company knew her.

I think many of us were a little quick to try to categorize it as anything specific.

[Abu Riyah]

How did we let that Persian muzzy into this country in the first place?

She was from Iran, but she was not Persian or Muslim.

She was Azeri (Turkish) and a Bahai (persecuted religion in Iran).

[Sousuke]

YouTube attack reminds me of Charlie Hebdo. An organization that is attacking people by claiming the right to do so, being completely unprepared for the real life consequences.

It's ironic that neither of the two organizations understands that laws don't protect them, they only specify the consequences for those who choose to break the laws. In case of CH, the law against guns and murder was broken and the perpetrators paid the price, so the justice was technically served as intended by the organized society.

Similarly, YouTube wants all the extra gun laws, they want AWB (which we have in CA), universal background checks (which we have in CA), magazine limits (which we have). These laws are supposed to protect us so well in CA that we can ignore our safety and can pretend that nothing bad will happen. Except, people can choose to break the law in exchange for the consequences. In this case, the perpetrator paid with her life, so the justice was served and the law actually worked as intended - consequences for breaking it.

Funny how ignorance works up until the moment that one has to face the consequences of the own ignorance. Don't want guns at YT? Don't have guns. Don't want armed security? Don't have armed security. Don't want metal detectors? Don't have metal detectors. Want to blame the NRA? Blame the NRA. However, in the end, it's just "she broke the law and paid the price, collateral damage being just collateral damage."

I find your comparison somewhat ironic given that Charlie Hebdo was strongly against censorship whereas Youtube actively promotes censorship.

I actually thing Charlie Hebdo was aware of the risks but was standing up for freedom of speech despite the threats.