Download now: The Downfall of Cable, and the Rise of 5G!

YouTube HQ Shot Up, But the Mainstream Media Will Bury It

Written by Alex Koyfman
Posted April 4, 2018 at 8:00PM

A mentally unstable gun-wielding individual stepped inside the San Bruno headquarters of Google-owned video hosting giant YouTube this past Tuesday and opened fire on random employees. 

This is a story that made shockwaves yesterday, but, given the circumstances of the case, I'm willing to bet it will be buried under an avalanche of background noise before next week.

Usually, the media thrives on images of glassy-eyed white males, armed with dark, menacing, large-magazined rifles. 

This time, the shooting was brought to you by a vegan female Iranian immigrant — a poster child for modern liberal sensibilities. 

She failed to kill anybody besides herself and, unlike most shooters, had an apparent agenda when she stepped through the doors.

Family members of the now-identified Nasim Najafi Aghdam indicated that she had vanished several days prior to the shooting and that they had tried to warn police of the potential danger she posed.

YouTube, Aghdam had alleged in her blog, was systematically targeting her animal rights channel for filtration, causing her following to wane and her click count to spiral. 

Mercifully, she was the only one to perish in her attack, killed by her own hand after injuring three others. 

Which makes this story a virtual non-starter with the mainstream media because it failed to check any of the critical boxes.

“This Shooting Didn't Do It For Us, So Lets Talk About How China's Tariff's Will Burst Trump's Bubble” — The Liberal Media

No “assault rifle” around which to rally the protestors. 

No double-digit death toll. 

Improper demographic, both gender and race, to get the masses nodding their empty heads about the evils of the patriarchy.

In short, the leftist narrative doesn't have much material here, so they'll likely leave it alone and wait for a better mass murder to come around before being aroused to action once again. 

The lack of a response is already evident, with the usual sewer of opinions, Twitter, remaining largely quite on the subject. 

There have been a few isolated statements tossed about, mostly to the delight of trolls, but the major news outlets have left the incident sidelined.

Even CNN, which thrives on this subject matter, has only made a couple tweets on the topic, focusing instead on its usual go-to, Trump, as well as coverage of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. 

The double standard is just one symptom of how shamelessly politicized this topic is, and it's an unforgivable distraction from the real problem. 

The massacre in Parkland, Florida, on Valentines Day of this year and this shooting didn't have much in common, but there were two critical elements that were present in almost all recent incidents involving guns.

Blame the NRA All You Want, But They Didn't Put a Gun Into Cruz's Hands — This Law Did

One, authorities received and ignored multiple reports of a potential danger — in the case of Nicholas Cruz, it was dozens of such reports over a time period spanning years. 

Two, the setting of the shooting was not properly protected.

The first issue is a systemic problem and can be impacted by proper legislation... or, in some cases, the lack of improper legislation. 

Nicholas Cruz had a clean record thanks to a federal school-leniency law passed in 2011. 

The basic intent of this law was to give young offenders a second chance by wiping their records of offenses committed in their earlier years, thus leaving them unencumbered by future problems with employment and voting. 

The end result was Nicholas Cruz was able to purchase an AR-15 legally from a gun store.

Had it not been for this law, the background check would have spotted the red flag, and the purchase would have been cancelled. 

That was an egregious failure and a sadly typical result of shortsighted do-goodery, but it's far from isolated.

Gun laws as they exist in many jurisdictions simply make no sense. 

In Maryland, for example, the thickness of a barrel can make the difference between a legal and illegal “assault rifle.” 

Not length, but thickness... the thinking being that a one-pound difference in weight will change the outcome of a mass shooting. 

A folding stock can mean the difference between a seven-day wait and a same-day “cash and carry” transaction. 

Seems reasonable, because a folding stock can make an otherwise bulky rifle easier to hide, but the law doesn't take into account caliber. 

It can therefore be easier to purchase a $2,000 semi-automatic AR-10, chambered in a caliber routinely used to hunt 300-pound mule deer from 500 yards and beyond, than it is to purchase a $300 backyard plinker chambered in .22 — a round with less power than many air guns available today for universal, unrestricted sale on the internet — because the plinker is dressed up in cheap plastic parts to look like a military rifle.

None of this is “sensible” gun control. It's gun control for the sake of gun control, and I would be shocked if any of these measures have ever stopped or mitigated an act of violence.

There's Never a Cop Around When You Need One

The second failure is a lack of ample protection. 

The response of the Broward Sheriff's Office, during and after the Parkland incident, speaks for itself. 

They spent more time covering up their actions than they did actually performing those actions, but as poorly as that was handled, the problem is not widespread or indicative of any pattern. 

The failure in protection in each mass shooting was the lack of any sort of technical ability to detect the threat before it positioned to strike. 

Metal detectors, as obtrusive and disruptive to foot traffic as they are, seem to work very well in warding off this threat. 

Would-be shooters simply move on to places without such protection. 

The problem is that they are not only expensive but also hardly conducive to maintaining a fun, carefree atmosphere — the kind you would find in a place like a hotel, shopping mall, or another innocent, danger-free atmosphere, and the kind you would hope exists in any school. 

Unlike your silly, misguided laws, however, this deficiency in the system has a pretty simple solution. 

Years of Development Have Taught Artificial Intelligence How to Save Your Life

There's a technology being eyed by the government right now that takes the concept of metal detection to the next level. 

Imagine a detection system that can distinguish between a weapon and an innocuous object, even if the two items are both made of metal.

Imagine that it's so smart that it can identify the type of weapon, whether it's a knife or a bomb, and so precise that it can narrow it down to the make and model of the gun. 

Now imagine its sensors are so powerful that their detection range allows them to be hidden in walls, floors, and ceilings so foot traffic never has to be disturbed. 

It sounds like science fiction, but this technology is already proven, tested, and approved by the FCC for sale in the U.S. 

With units costing far less than a standard metal detector gate, while at the same time offering far more capability, it's only a matter of time before it's adopted by places like airports, courthouses, and everywhere else where security causes major physical disruption. 

But it's places like casinos, hotels, and, yes, well-funded corporate headquarters that are expected to take advantage of the silent, invisible shield of protection that this system offers to its users. 

The company behind this technology has been trading for less than two years and has only recently started taking orders, but what it lacks in size now it makes up for in brains and momentum.

A former head of Homeland Security sits on the board of directors, and this month the company reported that it was in serious talks with a number of high-level officials in D.C. 

The interest from the private commercial side, including hotels and resorts, has been too great to list here. 

Unfortunately, you're not going to hear about this company or its groundbreaking product from sources like CNN or MSNBC until one of their lobbies is equipped with the devices. 

It's simply too practical, too dry, and too emotion-free of a story for them to cover. 

It's also too important to ignore, which is why I recently published a detailed report on the technology and the company that created it for limited distribution to Wealth Daily members. 

If you want to learn more about it, click here now to get instant access.

Fortune favors the bold,

alex koyfman Signature

Alex Koyfman

follow basic@AlexKoyfman on Twitter

Coming to us from an already impressive career as an independent trader and private investor, Alex's specialty is in the often misunderstood but highly profitable development-stage microcap sector. Focusing on young, aggressive, innovative biotech and technology firms from the U.S. and Canada, Alex has built a track record most Wall Street hedge funders would envy. Alex contributes his thoughts and insights regularly to Wealth Daily. To learn more about Alex, click here.


Buffett's Envy: 50% Annual Returns, Guaranteed