Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#121

Post by sheepmullet » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 2:16 AM UTC

etjossem wrote: post #91

ctdonath wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just for entertainment, but a great many for legitimate self-defense. Why should those rationally feeling need to prepare protection be denied by laws which ultimately do not stop the unstable deliberately acting to harm?

I recommend looking at the data on this before leaping to the conclusion that guns are effective at protecting their owners from lethal injury. In a Philadelphia-based study, "individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession" and that grew to 5.45 times more likely if the assault victim had a chance to resist. [1] Successful defensive gun use happens…

> In a Philadelphia-based study

I finally had the time to read the study and it's got plenty of problems. Painting it as more legitimate than the dozens of studies showing hundreds of thousands of defensive firearm usages is inane.

For example the differences between the case and control groups:

"compared with control participants, shooting case participants were":

- "more frequently working in high-risk occupations"

- "had a greater frequency of prior arrest."

- "significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs"

- "more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking"

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#122

Post by simonh » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 8:39 AM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #87

simonh wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should tens of thousands of people die every year for the sake of a hobby? Imagine if every year 30,000 D&D players stabbed themselves or someone else to death with a Longsword.

How about drivers? Pilots? Boaters? Drinkers? We all do something dangerous and fairly antisocial. But only one of those things tends to be demonized.

All of those activities have to justify themselves on the basis of the social and economic benefits they provide, and the associated risks. They are also very highly and well regulated activities. Drivers, pilots and sailors all must have licenses and operate within strict limits. If your point is that firearm ownership is of a similar kind and, if allowed at all, should also be subject to similar strict controls and proficiency checks, then I completely agree.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#123

Post by simonh » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 9:07 AM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #110

simonh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because guaranteed right to gun ownership enables the unstable to cause that harm in the first place. Gun owners and their families are so much more likely to be harmed by a gun they own than be protected by it that it’s apaling. How can you possibly justify promoting that, knowing the balance of risks you are advocating people expose themselves and their families to?

That claim is massively wrong. See my above comment.

Ah, your comment that guns prevent more deaths than they cause. So you’re expecting us to believe that compared to 33,000 gun deaths, more deaths are prevented, therefore you’d have over 66,000 annual deaths by other weapons and this is only prevented by massive levels of gun ownership? As claims go, that really is extraordinary. It’s hard to envisage what a gun free society with those levels of lethal violence would look like.

Of course the flaw in your argument is that the only significant reason people need to have guns to protect themselves, is because other people have guns. Take away everyone’s guns, and the absurdity of your argument dissolves itself. And yes, it is possible to remove most weapons in criminal hands. Many countries successfully do this. The high levels of access to guns by criminals is only enabled by a pervasive gun culture.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#124

Post by supreme_sublime » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 11:06 AM UTC

mhudson125 wrote: post #117

supreme_sublime wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are fairly old, but I've gathered they don't make a profit based on articles like the following. http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-wojc... https://outline.com/7PG22L

Unfortunately, neither of the links show a concrete indication of where YouTube profitability is right now. It was approximated to be break even two years ago but doesn't have a growth factor as part of the number that is reported in the article, which is a key metric for determining revenue in the future. Revenue aside, profitability is extremely difficult to calculate as we don't know what the costs are as YouTube…

That was the second link I posted. Either way, YouTube's profitability has little bearing on the second part of my comment. Unfortunately people decided to ignore that and focus on YouTube's profitability for some reason.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#125

Post by mieseratte » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 11:32 AM UTC

nielsbot wrote: post #14

mieseratte wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet another mentally ill individual who did not get the treatment they so clearly needed.

Why not both?

I never implied the two were mutually exclusive.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#126

Post by mieseratte » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 11:35 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #95

ctdonath wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A very common factor in such mass murders is the use of antidepressants. Having seen up close what happens when someone on such medication misses a few doses (extreme & systematic rage), I'm stunned that there has not been intense investigation into the correlation.

People always mention mental illness, but other things are more common: being male; having a conviction for domestic assault; having a drug or alcohol addiction; having a TBI. Other countries prescribe anti-depressant medication in similar quantities to the US, and those countries don't have the same problems of violence that the US does.

> having a conviction for domestic assault; > having a drug or alcohol addiction; > having a TBI

I know the YouTube incident, specifically, was not a mass-shooting incident (4+ casualties, not including the shooter) but the comment you replied to specifically mentioned mass-shooting.

That males are overrepresented seems fairly self-evident, but is there a noted link between DV, TBI, and addiction(s) with mass-shootings? I've never heard that angle.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#127

Post by kdamken » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:20 PM UTC

_m8fo wrote: post #34

[flagged]

Wow you're right I was going to say that people locked into serfdom in the middle ages had it bad, or that all that slavery in the early US, but no, you're right. People in America today definitely have it the worst of anybody and we're definitely super close to the end of the world.

Except that's bullshit. You know that right? There has never been more opportunity for people to improve their situation and lot in life.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#128

Post by danans » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 6:46 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #74

make3 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the fact that she can get a gun from any other state makes it a question. gun control laws work when you can't just super easily go to another state to get a gun, the proof being in the much lower number if gun crimes in every other industrialized country where the gun laws are tight in the whole country. That's pretty much every single other industrialized country.

Interesting that those low-restriction states have such low violent crime. In fact, those US counties with zero murders (about half) have the most lax gun control laws. Were the premise of your comment true, those other states should be the ones with outlandish murder rates. We have guns, we don't abuse guns; what's up with the high-gun-control areas being so prone to such violence that when guns are available they'r…

> what's up with the high-gun-control areas being so prone to such violence that when guns are available they're so readily abused?

Your reasoning doesn't add up because the factor you are using (lax gun laws vs strict between states) is far too coarse to make any reasonable inference from.

California has tight gun restrictions. But high income cities, counties, and neighborhoods in California (i.e. Palo Alto, Marin, Pacific Heights) with intact community structures have very low gun violence rates by US standards.

Low income areas with a significant illicit drug trade, high rates of intra-community trauma, historical abuse by police, and a frayed community structure, have high rates of gun violence.

The availability of guns, purchased legally or illegally, has a more pronounced impact on the latter sort of area than the former because the latter type is more likely to produce interpersonal conflicts which escalate to the use of guns, because other means of dealing with the conflicts (police, the court system, community structures) are often less effective or available for them.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#129

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 7:02 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #74

make3 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the fact that she can get a gun from any other state makes it a question. gun control laws work when you can't just super easily go to another state to get a gun, the proof being in the much lower number if gun crimes in every other industrialized country where the gun laws are tight in the whole country. That's pretty much every single other industrialized country.

Interesting that those low-restriction states have such low violent crime. In fact, those US counties with zero murders (about half) have the most lax gun control laws. Were the premise of your comment true, those other states should be the ones with outlandish murder rates. We have guns, we don't abuse guns; what's up with the high-gun-control areas being so prone to such violence that when guns are available they'r…

> Interesting that those low-restriction states have such low violent crime.

Not all that surprising. The low restriction states also tend to be low-urban-population proportion; many types of crime increasing in urban environments is a long observed thing across pretty much all human societies, for which density, relative anonymity, and Stark and omnipresent socioeconomic contrasts have all been suggested as contributing factors.

> In fact, those US counties with zero murders (about half) have the most lax gun control laws.

Well, sure, they also mostly have populations below (often by an order of magnitude or more) the level at which the expected number of murders at the national rate would be 1.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#130

Post by ctdonath » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 4:36 PM UTC

danans wrote: post #128

ctdonath wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that those low-restriction states have such low violent crime. In fact, those US counties with zero murders (about half) have the most lax gun control laws. Were the premise of your comment true, those other states should be the ones with outlandish murder rates. We have guns, we don't abuse guns; what's up with the high-gun-control areas being so prone to such violence that when guns are available they'r…

> what's up with the high-gun-control areas being so prone to such violence that when guns are available they're so readily abused? Your reasoning doesn't add up because the factor you are using (lax gun laws vs strict between states) is far too coarse to make any reasonable inference from. California has tight gun restrictions. But high income cities, counties, and neighborhoods in California (i.e. Palo Alto, Marin,…

There's plenty of low-income areas in flyover country, with high gun ownership - used fairly for defense & provisions. That they can own guns at high rates responsibly points to cultural choices; don't punish them for bad behavior of strangers far away. STOP SHOOTING PEOPLE.