A real winner, this one. Off-the-wall mad, gets a gun in a state like California (where gun laws are very strict), parents tried to tell the police she had problems with YouTube and was threatening, apparently. Of course, the media tried to make Nasim more white in an attempt to push a narrative, but let's not worry about that, right? Mashable presented a picture of the woman above with green eyes and pale skin in an attempt to make her more "white" and then, of course, when caught, deleted the whole thing...
A 40 year old animal rights activist with a mental disorder. I was an anti-poaching ranger and I've seen all sorts, crazy vegans jokes abounded. We even had one girl who was in something approaching the mythical VLF, vegetable liberation front. To be fair, she was right about some expensive tourist lodges and shocking food waste. In their hearts empathetic but anxious, obsessive and high strung like many gun activists and some abortion activists. Add some voices in the head.. Only had a handgun mercifully and possibly thanks to California's strict laws indicating they helped in this case. With an AR type she would have certainly killed more than just herself. Let that be a lesson.
I will let someone explain that it is easier to get an AR-15 in California than a handgun -- according to the media. Someone who lives there can outline the exact laws.
It is indeed. I'd be happy to answer questions on California gun law, but something tells me it isn't you who is posing them, but someone I have on ignore and cannot see.
No, nor have I opposed this ever. The question isn't about "nut jobs" getting guns but what constitutes a "nut job" and how is that defined. If the state can classify anyone as a mental health issue without due process just to get their firearms, that is a problem. But if there is a strong push towards mental health for those who need it and due process is done to ensure someone who is unstable or has mental issues cannot get a firearm, then I am all for it.\ However, the problem will continue to be crazy people who can get guns illegally. You can't stop that with gun control.
The claim by poster Slartibartfast is that the casualties were low because the shooter only had a handgun rather than an AR-15 thanks to California's strict gun laws.
I don't know when she got the handgun, however it is clear that because a small caliber weapon resulted in wounding not deaths 3rd party that "inconvenient truth" is disregarded and some nonsense about a photo of her with blue eyes that she apparently edited herself? Yeah, because she looks Western European anyway (she could be a little Italianish if she still had brown eyes). It is a shooting and he is on it because he has an obsessive activist type mental disorder himself I am quite certain. I believe that one day he will try and find an excuse to murder somebody legally and is encouraging others to do the same. Be warned, this man Tsing Tao is not someone you should feed by stroking his ego as a credible expert/authority. He is an obsessive.
Ah, well he's not known for his high level of cognitive thought, just his high level of insult slinging banter. There were few casualties because the shooter was someone who had no real firearm training, got a gun (not sure if it was illegally obtained, but I'm going to guess it wasn't hers) and was pissed off, and crazy. Fortunately, law enforcement responded quickly. And Youtube corporate had an active shooter policy that seemed like it was followed. Its just a shame they had not taken the father's warning.
And the gun was not a high-velocity AR where the hydro-static shock-wave from hit nearly anywhere in the body would shred organs and arteries. Today, a gun is just a gun because it suits his narrative. Unsubscribing from the thread.