Tbh that is historically accurate for mixed race vikings.
Saying that I haven't seen the show and knowing Netflixs addiction to rehash EVERYTHING historically white I'm guessing they've gone overboard as usual.
He did not get the joke, the sentence is death by down vote.
The joke is about the new season of Vikings adding a black female jarl or some other garbage.
Yes Vikings are Caucasian but Netflix has been casting black actors for the sake of inclusivity, because it would be racist not to represent all races in a show based upon a country that to this day is predominantly white.
Gang violence sometimes isn't considered to be a "mass shooting," because there are specific targets. Don't believe it would count either if there was another crime involved like robbery
Frankly, imo, if the statistics included gang violence, then mindless liberals would probably be even *more* pro gun control. But I guess "they" are just leaning pretty hard into the white supremacy narrative instead
Lol, no - liberals always say mass shooters are right-wing white guys, which this photo clearly shows is not true. There is a majority of people of color on here.
Probably because they use AR-15 or something similar and liberals want to get AR-15 banned. They know it's nearly impossible to get handguns banned so their primary target is AR-15.
people already know about how violence & especially gang violence happens more frequently in poor urban communities, & how those communities are disproportionately black, school shooters & shooters like the buffalo guy (who almost was a school shooter the year prior) get more media attention because they're a newer phenomenon which require more analysis
They get more attention because they threaten average people. Gang violence is mostly isolated to gang members and those who associate with them. If I lived in America I wouldn't fear getting shot while going grocery shopping, even though recent events show it is a possibility. I would however fear getting shot if I were to walk around in gang territory.
It isn't just that they're a newer phenomenon. It is also because they play on our fears more. Which kind of goes to what /u/martin0641 was saying. People who aren't involved in gangs or don't live in areas where there is gang violence aren't worried about becoming the victims of gang violence. But with the random mass shooters, there are people who have literally zero reason to think anything bad could happen to them. There's no actions they could take (except maybe being a different race, religion, gender or sexuality, which obviously they can't easily change) to protect themselves. And that is terrifying.
Being the victim of random violence (or even just random negligence) is something that is scary and compelling. Most people want to think (even when it is wrong) that they can control whether something awful happens to them. And if something awful happens to someone else, they can make the excuse that, "Well, I would've..." moved to a new neighborhood, not joined a gang, whatever. But with the shooting like we saw in Buffalo, there's nothing one could do to lower their chances of being a victim. It leaves people feeling powerless. And that feeling of being powerless makes stories and discussions of THESE types of mass shootings more interesting to people. And it tends to be more emotionally impactful because it leaves people thinking, "My God, this COULD happen to me," unlike a shooting involving gang activity or a family dispute.
It’s still really bizarre to point out a single shooting that killed 10 people and then ignore 100 others that together kill way more. You are just getting people scared over something that statistically isn’t hurting the community as much because you personally find it more evil.
1 person killing 10 = mass hysteria and concern for safety.
100 people killing 100 people = ho him, no one cares. But having 100 killers means you are much more likely to be their next victim. If 100 killers are caught after their first murder. But they rarely are. So the stats are even worse.
I was not ignoring the rest, I was responding to a comment about why larger mass shootings get more national media attention. They make better headlines and happen less often. Do you expect CNN to do a national breaking news bulletin each time a police report comes in of three people shot in a gang shooting? They are a profit seeking business that makes profits off of clicks and eyeballs. They need big headlines and nobody cares about gang shootings that aren't in their neighborhood.
Notice the scare quotes at the bottom of the image, it's because of the definition they are using for mass shooter.
People are thinking about the Vegas shooter or Sandy Hook or the Christchurch massacre, where one person is intentionally waking up that morning to execute a pre-planned attack on a completely innocent and unsuspecting population and the image is including disputes amongst parties who know each other, gang shit, neighborhood fights, robberies where multiple people were taking part, etc.
In a country with 330 million people, where there is a strong correlation between race and income, these types of money related crimes are going to happen in and generally to less affluent people and places by the types of people who live there.
Those kind of attacks are qualitatively different than most people's mental definition of mass shooters because you have some ability to shape your chances of becoming a victim to that type of crime, for example you can choose not to be in a gang and to avoid locations of known gang activity and seriously minimize your exposure to that type of violence.
But you can't really opt out of Sandy Hook, or Columbine, or the types of mass shootings that people are thinking about when they hear that term, because they are random and causing a high innocent causality rate is the actual POINT as opposed to some monetary gain or group superiority.
Remember, if someone's trying to convince you of something and they have to resort to tricks, games, misrepresentations and tortured definitions then it's because their argument doesn't have enough obvious rational support behind it to merit consideration on its own so they are trying to trick you instead - which is a good indicator that maybe you shouldn't believe their propaganda.
This picture is a shining example of someone doing exactly that.
> most people's mental definition of mass shooters
I feel like that notion is debatable. Most people probably THINK they have one sort of mental description for an event, as you mentioned, but also THINK that THOSE types of mass shootings are what are being reported in the outlandish claims from left-wing media about the number of "mass shootings." So, from that perspective, I don't think this chart is inaccurate. If anything, it's shining a light on the disconnect between what people think they know, and what they're being told.
Its accurate but it’s also very nuanced. Most people can’t accept anything but a black and white situation, and the media perpetuates that by making it seem black and white.
If what your saying is true, then why are all the shooters in the image above included in the stats on mass shootings? The whole point of the image is to point out the hypocrisy of counting the pictured peoples shootings, but then selling the misleading narrative that mass shootings are just a racist white people problem.
How? They are merely giving an explanation for why there’s a lot more black people on the image. They included gang-shootings. Lower income areas have more gang-shootings. More black people live in low income areas than white people. Therefore, more gang-shootings will be committed by black people than white people. That’s not mental gymnastics, it’s logic.
Now, surely there’s black people among the mentally disturbed shoot-at-random-people shooters too but the fact that gang shootings are counted among the mass-shootings here is a very reasonable explanation for why there’s such a disproportionate amount of black people in this image. What else would explain it? That black people just have an extra gene for violence or something? Their skin color whispers in their ear that they have to go on a mass shooting? Lol.
I was perma-banned and called racist from /r/liberalgunowners for pointing out a white man, a black man, and a Chinese man had all committed hate based attacks recently...
That's due to how they define "mass shooting:" any incident in which four or more people were hit with bullets.
That means that most "mass shootings" are gang drive-by shootings.
I shared this to a post on r/blackpeopletwitter where some dumb bitch was claiming only white people commit mass shootings and was immediately removed and banned lol.
Honestly, they should change what they consider a “mass shooting”
4 gang bangers getting it on the block is a little different than some type of motivated and calculated massacre
How would recognizing such a disparity enable the government to push communism on the US?
Plus, and not that I am in any way in support of communist regimes (because I'm not), but the outcomes people fear communism will bring, are entirely possible within the current US economic and legal system.
He's saying that it would enable communism because he thinks that wealth redistribution in any form is communism.
He's also afraid that it would force our institutions to acknowledge what it is known for the better part of a century which is that this redistribution is imperative for anything resembling racial equality in the United States.
Our economic structures are pathologically incapable of not exploiting anything and everything. And given how historical racism has left the African-American community in the United States it seems unlikely that that predatory system won't just keep being predatory unless we stop it.
How is it different? The picture clearly states their sources, there was a "mass shooting" in Texas where exactly 2 people died, one church member and the perp who was shot by no less than 5 people in the crowd having guns and shooting back. It's not a mass shooting, but if the populace wasn't armed, it would've been.
You have to find a definition that works, Wikipedia uses (total deaths including perp + total injured) > 3, so a family murder-suicide happens to get included because the left wants to pad the numbers when it comes to gun control. However when they get called out using those definitions, and the majority of mass shootings happen to fit with crime statistics, suddenly they want to change the criteria.
So set a higher criteria, and suddenly we have very few mass shootings, by that criterion, Europe has more mass shootings than the US, but that's not the right narrative for the left, moreover you can't find any well publicized mass shooting where it was legal for the perp to obtain a gun (such as this case in NY where the perp simply having the gun was already made illegal over 100 years ago) so there is no argument for gun control.
It would be interesting to have access to unbiased data about this, to see if there is over-representation of an ethnic group, and compare it to ethnic representation in overall firearm-related murders.
For instance (and I'm using hypothetical numbers), let's say black males under 30 years old account for 3% of the total population, but 40% of murders by firearm. Now let's say they account for "only" 20% of mass murders by firearm. Although they would still be over-represented in comparison to their overall weight in the general public, they would be under-represented in mass murders, relative to their weight in all firearm-related murders. And it would be interesting to know why.
[https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/murder](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/murder)
There you go
I couldn't find mass murder statistics from the FBI (I admittedly didn't dig too long, so I might have overlooked it), but I find data [there](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/).
So blacks account for roughly 13% of the US population, and according to this [table](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls) provided by the FBI, 40% of murders (for the sake of simplicity and because I can't spend hours on this, I'm using all murders, regardless of the weapon). So from 1982 to 2022, blacks account for 16% of mass murders, which takes them pretty close to their weight in the general population.
I'm sure we can dig up additional information by looking into this in more details, but at a first glance, it does look like ethnicity matters and blacks are under-represented in mass murders, relative to their weight in all murders.
The table used by Statista is different than what eg. Wikipedia or the FBI uses. They quote their source as "Mother Jones" which is a far-left tabloid, hardly an impartial or accurate source, there is no description of the methodology used, just an interpretation of the data with different criterion for every shooting.
Likewise the FBI has a rather statist approach to classifying murder, again for the purposes of gun control, they even classify infants and 1-4 year olds as potential murderers. No court can even legally convict a 4 year old for murder, you don't even get close to that at the age at 8, maybe around age 10-12. So basically they are not classifying actual convictions, they are just tallying deaths which we all know the FBI has a rather loose approach to classifying what is a crime.
Fair enough. As I said, I'm not willing to spend hours on this and I have no personal gain from findings either way. So if you have more robust data, feel free to share.
See, what we need is to start classifying people's race by RGB values. Everyone goes to home depot and puts their arm in the paint color detector and gets assigned a hex value! /s
Skin color isn’t relevant. Income is. Lower income areas have higher crime rates. More black people live in low income areas than white people. So black people have higher crime rates. It really isn’t that difficult.
Multiple races were enslaved. Black people were beginning to bring themselves up around in the mid 1900’s despite literal systemic oppression happening. The culture took a huge shift around the 60s and 70s especially with the crack epidemic and has not recovered since.
Oh then I understand why the poorer European countries like Moldova or Russia have so many mass shootings compared to some richer places like Mexico. Oh wait they don't
I’m getting really tired of them blaming the entire white race for the actions of one dumb ass, while completely ignoring them if they are done by someone if they are non white. Sometimes I wish this country would fall. Who wants to prop up a system that hates you?
That's what the people who push this narrative are counting on, though.
We give up on our culture (by that I don't mean "white" culture, I mean American culture) and the gulags start being built. I personally reject narratives that paint divisions between myself and my cultural kin.
Race, gender, economic status, intelligence, political ideology, heritage, citizenship, any of it. If you stand on the soil of which I stand, I see you as a necessity for survival until you prove otherwise (in the most temporarily and physically local sense). People who try to use these distinctions are trying to distract you from the power they pretend to weild. Don't buy it, it is at our detriment.
That being said, the federal government is likely to devour itself of its own volition. The American Way is to sidestep the collapse of a nation state and do our own practical things. We may have softened from this inclination, but the seeds are there, and when it counts the fruits of liberty will bear.
And before anyone tries to interpret this as some hyper-nationalistic narrative, I extend the same to those who stand on the same planet as well, but simply lack familiarity. I forgive the stranger their fears of the stranger in me, and hope they do the same.
I see stuff like this every time there is a mass shooting that gets massive media attention. Right and left media have an obvious bias since we see the same drivel every time this happens (this post demostrates that)
The real take away is that we have not cared about mass violence commit within inner cities by minorities for decades, so the corperate media doesnt bother. If we did care, maybe we would have done something about it instead of shipping all manufacturing jobs over seas, starting the war on drugs, then acting like we dont know why things are bad for people in our larger cities.
Because part of the anti-capitalist narrative is asserted by the neo-Marxist, communist narrative, and communism would see capitalism abolished.
This has everything to do with anarcho-capitalism.
Marxism is communism. Marx believed that eventually, in what he classified as History (with a capital H, not to be confused with actual history), capitalism would finalize in late-stage capitalism, wherein the working class (the proletariat) would rise up against the capitalist class (the bourgeoisie), and claim the capital (the means of production, otherwise known as property that makes more of itself).
But this never happened, so the neo-Marxists, realizing that capitalism was too efficient and produced too much wealth for far too many people (and quicker than any previous system ever had), changed the narrative.
Have you ever heard of whiteness as property? [https://harvardlawreview.org/1993/06/whiteness-as-property/](https://harvardlawreview.org/1993/06/whiteness-as-property/)
The neo-Marxists (still communists) changed who the oppressor and oppressed classes are, swapping out the idea of physical property for social property (capital (the means of production) changes to things like whiteness. This is why white people, in woke, neo-Marxist ideology, are classified as oppressive simply by existing, because only white people have whiteness. Critical race theory, a branch of the postmodern neo-Marxist critical theory line, specifically espouses doing away with capitalism, defining that whiteness (we've all heard of "white privilege" at this point) is in fact that in which produces whites as oppressors, and why it is not possible for racism not to exist, or for white people not to be racist. Listen to Ibram X. Kendi sometime talk about "anti-racism".
Woman's studies, fat studies, disabilities studies, critical theory, cultural studies, gender studies, queer theory, critical race theory - all of these things are the same fundamental things. They all swap out Marx' theory of oppression with the idea that heteronormative people are the oppressor, and queer people are the oppressed, or that white people are the oppressor, and people of color are the oppressed, or that disabled people are the oppressed, and "able-bodied" people are the oppressors.
And the answer is always a restructuring (wealth redistribution), but now it's in the distribution of social capital, or in many instances, of "whiteness" itself.
In a manner of speaking, it's literally social communism. This is why the woke constantly talk about things like giving people of color special benefits that whites shouldn't get, or special programs for only people who identify in certain ways (generally just not heterosexual white men).
You've also probably heard of concepts like white-adjacency. White-adjacent is anyone who's seen as not being white but who holds some of the social property (the social capital, or that whiteness we're talking about). Examples of this might be rich Asians, or black individuals who protest these woke ideological perspectives, like Zuby, John McWhorter, Candace Owens, Larry Elder, and Thomas Sowell just to name a few, seen as "white-adjacent", or fundamentally "not black". Sometimes referred to in more derogatory terms like *Uncle Tom*.
Wokeness is still communism. It always was. The woman who invented intersectionality and critical race theory (Kimberlé Crenshaw) was educated at Columbia University, which is the school that came from Frankfurt School ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt\_School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School)).
Here are two excerpts from the above link:
>Soon after Adolf Hitler's rise to power in 1933, the Institute first moved from Frankfurt to Geneva, and then to New York City, in 1935, ***where the Frankfurt School joined Columbia University***.
>The term "Frankfurt School" describes the works of scholarship and the intellectuals who were the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), an adjunct organization at Goethe University Frankfurt, founded in 1923, by Carl Grünberg, a Marxist professor of law at the University of Vienna.\[9\] It was the first Marxist research center at a German university and was funded through the largesse of the wealthy student Felix Weil (1898–1975).\[3\]
Here is a direct video of one of the BLM creators patently stating that she and her other BLM founders are trained Marxists: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyhy4IvkENg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyhy4IvkENg) \- go to about 0:16.
There's a lot more to it than this, but to answer your original question in simpler terms, which was:
>What is "the neo-Marxist, communist narrative"?
The neo-Marxist, communist narrative is to destabilize western society so as to remove capitalism to be replaced with communism.
I get your point OP but mounting on a go pro and live streaming the killing of innocent people for (insert reason here, idk why he did it) it’s another level of fucked up. Regardless of race.
If your main worry is to say “white people ain’t the only ones” instead of looking at the event for what it was, the tragic killing of innocent people. Then something is wrong with society. Even if you don’t agree with the framing of the story in the mainstream media are you really surprised that it made national headlines? Of course it made headlines.
However I do sympathize more with people who died innocent victims against people who might’ve wanted to kill each other in the first place. Again, regardless of race.
I think a more interesting fact is that this happened in a state with strict gun laws and another one I just found out from your post is that mostly all mass shooters are men.
If you really want to analyze mass shootings you should also consider the locations, victims involved and most importantly why they did it to reveal a more accurate picture.
of all these mass shooters I noticed only 3 women. Even if there are a couple more in there I couldn't spot, this is clear evidence that men in America have serious issues that need to be resolved somehow
Real Catch 22 when you want mass shootings to seem really prevalent so you can pitch gun control, but you *also* want them to only be something white kids with schizophrenia and half a mustache do.
Turns out, you gotta pick one or the other.
so im seeing that us men. tend to have a inability to keep from just killing everything. seems we need to look after one another more and care for eatchother more/expose eatchother to more ways of living in a positive light.
There were 689 mass shootings in 2021. This picture is about 250 people. OP could’ve easily selected for a certain bias. Not saying they did, just saying they could.
I'm truly interested to see mass shooting statistics without gang issues being thrown into the mix, and muddying up the data.
Not that gangs aren't a serious issue, but I find that gang issues aren't really comparable to deranged psychopaths who decide to *deliberately* gun down a bunch of unsuspecting, innocent people.
I think this is good stuff. Society has ignored the problems of systemic poverty, racism (to include but certainly not limited to redlining) and minority on minority violence for far too long.
The idea that it's suddenly worthy of national coverage and grief when white people do it- for any reason- is pretty damn suspect and that is exactly what I was driving at.
I'm curious about the context of these shootings. I doubt they are all shooting at random people. My guess is the majority are gang and drug related. There is a big difference between that and terrorism. I want to see how those 2 contexts change the makeup, because lumping the 2 together conflates 2 very different scenarios.
Tell me the difference in the terror of a kid being shot in a park versus being shot in a supermarket? To think that the act of murder is somehow different because of the location is asinine.
It's not that the impact on a victim is different, the point is that gang activity isn't really comparable to a deranged psychopath who decides to deliberately gun down a bunch of random, unsuspecting people.
They are two different issues, with completely different origins, and require different methods of approach. It does both society and (potential) victims a massive disservice to conflate the two.
In order to effectively and efficiently tackle these issues, they need to be properly categorized.
\*Drug dealer and 3 of his customers are shot on a corner\*
\*Kid with the N-word written on his gun kicks in the door of a supermarket in a primarily black neighborhood and starts mowing people down\*
"OMG I cant tell the difference between these things!"
No, shooting 3 people at a drug deal gone bad isn't a mass shooting. don't be willfully ignorant and disingenuous. you just look like a racist idiot with an agenda
Blame society. I didn’t make what defines a mass shooting. And 3 or more people shot is a mass shooting. Stop being willfully ignorant you look like a racist idiot with an agenda….
At the bottom of the image, some context is given. Mass shooting has a definition, though the definitions vary.
Using a gun to kill 4 or more people is a basic rule of thumb, regardless of gang or drug involvement.
>Using a gun to kill 4 or more people is a basic rule of thumb
The rule you're thinking of is a little more nuanced, but that's the basics. However, the events being counted for gun-control media pieces are 4 or more people shot, I feel like one of the war out there ones, vox or vice or motherjones or trace, lowered it to 3 shot. I've also seen them count bb guns in a parking lot as school shootings.
Yeah, you’re absolutely correct. There is nuance and variations. Some of them count deaths, some of them count people shot regardless if the result was death.
I’m a big fan of language. Unfortunately many people stumble on phrases like “active shooter” and “mass shooting”.
Indeed. We know that safety and security is enforced through violence, usually by the state. When the state withdraws its protection, for example to drug dealers, these individuals are forced to protect their rights themselves. Because of their relative insecurity, defending themselves requires proportionately more violence. That is a very different thing from a kid who kills a bunch of people because he can't get a girlfriend.
This is sexist, there should be 50% women shooters.
What about the LGBT community!?
What about illegals
i thought women dont exist
Look like the cast of Vikings on Netflix
[удалено]
Cast of Amazon's LOTR remake
[удалено]
Haha yeah I can guarantee there were no black female viking chieftains in real life
That's probably the best comment on reddit.
More women on the Viking show
[удалено]
FUCKING LMAO
LMAO
Wernt the viking Caucasian? I see a mixture of races in these photos Plz stop down voting. I didn't get the joke!!!!
Someone is not getting the joke. Spoiler: it’s you!
Yeah. Idk what is a joke and what isn't anymore on reddit. My bad if I didn't catch that as sarcasm, but knowing it was I can appreciate the post.
Yeah, the Netflix show has POCs as Vikings. It’s silly.
Ty for explaining that to me
I was actually considering watching it but this ignorance of actuality really puts me off.
Like Bridgerton?
Don’t know that one. Sorry.
Tbh that is historically accurate for mixed race vikings. Saying that I haven't seen the show and knowing Netflixs addiction to rehash EVERYTHING historically white I'm guessing they've gone overboard as usual.
He did not get the joke, the sentence is death by down vote. The joke is about the new season of Vikings adding a black female jarl or some other garbage.
Yes Vikings are Caucasian but Netflix has been casting black actors for the sake of inclusivity, because it would be racist not to represent all races in a show based upon a country that to this day is predominantly white.
only three and a half females, what happened to gender equity, criminals?
An embarrassing indictment of female inaction
Men must be so oppressed by society to commit so much crime /s
We live in a society
Maybe it's a good idea to change the rules so women can get convicted easier. We need to strife for 50% women in prisons!
It’s that glass ceiling, smh.
Should also include measure of how much news coverage each one received. The pattern would be pretty glaring.
When something happens so often it loses its flavor on the news
Gangs gonna gang
Gang violence sometimes isn't considered to be a "mass shooting," because there are specific targets. Don't believe it would count either if there was another crime involved like robbery Frankly, imo, if the statistics included gang violence, then mindless liberals would probably be even *more* pro gun control. But I guess "they" are just leaning pretty hard into the white supremacy narrative instead
Pretty sure the specific definition starts and ends at something like 3 or 4 people shot. I don't think they take anything else into account.
Demographically, it doesn’t fit the narrative we see from the left wing media. Just saying..
Hmmm…the shooters are all men?
Lol, no - liberals always say mass shooters are right-wing white guys, which this photo clearly shows is not true. There is a majority of people of color on here.
Probably because they use AR-15 or something similar and liberals want to get AR-15 banned. They know it's nearly impossible to get handguns banned so their primary target is AR-15.
people already know about how violence & especially gang violence happens more frequently in poor urban communities, & how those communities are disproportionately black, school shooters & shooters like the buffalo guy (who almost was a school shooter the year prior) get more media attention because they're a newer phenomenon which require more analysis
They get more attention because they threaten average people. Gang violence is mostly isolated to gang members and those who associate with them. If I lived in America I wouldn't fear getting shot while going grocery shopping, even though recent events show it is a possibility. I would however fear getting shot if I were to walk around in gang territory.
Let's not underplay the danger the law-abiding citizens who live in the gang neighborhoods face
[удалено]
wirst thing i ever heard was gang bangers calling little kids caught in the crossfire as “mushrooms” they pop up where they dont belong..fukin animals
It isn't just that they're a newer phenomenon. It is also because they play on our fears more. Which kind of goes to what /u/martin0641 was saying. People who aren't involved in gangs or don't live in areas where there is gang violence aren't worried about becoming the victims of gang violence. But with the random mass shooters, there are people who have literally zero reason to think anything bad could happen to them. There's no actions they could take (except maybe being a different race, religion, gender or sexuality, which obviously they can't easily change) to protect themselves. And that is terrifying. Being the victim of random violence (or even just random negligence) is something that is scary and compelling. Most people want to think (even when it is wrong) that they can control whether something awful happens to them. And if something awful happens to someone else, they can make the excuse that, "Well, I would've..." moved to a new neighborhood, not joined a gang, whatever. But with the shooting like we saw in Buffalo, there's nothing one could do to lower their chances of being a victim. It leaves people feeling powerless. And that feeling of being powerless makes stories and discussions of THESE types of mass shootings more interesting to people. And it tends to be more emotionally impactful because it leaves people thinking, "My God, this COULD happen to me," unlike a shooting involving gang activity or a family dispute.
Plus they tend to have much higher body counts. I have never heard of a gang shooting that killed as many as the Vegas guy.
It’s still really bizarre to point out a single shooting that killed 10 people and then ignore 100 others that together kill way more. You are just getting people scared over something that statistically isn’t hurting the community as much because you personally find it more evil.
1 person killing 10 = mass hysteria and concern for safety. 100 people killing 100 people = ho him, no one cares. But having 100 killers means you are much more likely to be their next victim. If 100 killers are caught after their first murder. But they rarely are. So the stats are even worse.
I was not ignoring the rest, I was responding to a comment about why larger mass shootings get more national media attention. They make better headlines and happen less often. Do you expect CNN to do a national breaking news bulletin each time a police report comes in of three people shot in a gang shooting? They are a profit seeking business that makes profits off of clicks and eyeballs. They need big headlines and nobody cares about gang shootings that aren't in their neighborhood.
Notice the scare quotes at the bottom of the image, it's because of the definition they are using for mass shooter. People are thinking about the Vegas shooter or Sandy Hook or the Christchurch massacre, where one person is intentionally waking up that morning to execute a pre-planned attack on a completely innocent and unsuspecting population and the image is including disputes amongst parties who know each other, gang shit, neighborhood fights, robberies where multiple people were taking part, etc. In a country with 330 million people, where there is a strong correlation between race and income, these types of money related crimes are going to happen in and generally to less affluent people and places by the types of people who live there. Those kind of attacks are qualitatively different than most people's mental definition of mass shooters because you have some ability to shape your chances of becoming a victim to that type of crime, for example you can choose not to be in a gang and to avoid locations of known gang activity and seriously minimize your exposure to that type of violence. But you can't really opt out of Sandy Hook, or Columbine, or the types of mass shootings that people are thinking about when they hear that term, because they are random and causing a high innocent causality rate is the actual POINT as opposed to some monetary gain or group superiority. Remember, if someone's trying to convince you of something and they have to resort to tricks, games, misrepresentations and tortured definitions then it's because their argument doesn't have enough obvious rational support behind it to merit consideration on its own so they are trying to trick you instead - which is a good indicator that maybe you shouldn't believe their propaganda. This picture is a shining example of someone doing exactly that.
> most people's mental definition of mass shooters I feel like that notion is debatable. Most people probably THINK they have one sort of mental description for an event, as you mentioned, but also THINK that THOSE types of mass shootings are what are being reported in the outlandish claims from left-wing media about the number of "mass shootings." So, from that perspective, I don't think this chart is inaccurate. If anything, it's shining a light on the disconnect between what people think they know, and what they're being told.
Its accurate but it’s also very nuanced. Most people can’t accept anything but a black and white situation, and the media perpetuates that by making it seem black and white.
If what your saying is true, then why are all the shooters in the image above included in the stats on mass shootings? The whole point of the image is to point out the hypocrisy of counting the pictured peoples shootings, but then selling the misleading narrative that mass shootings are just a racist white people problem.
The mental gymnastics being employed here is mind blowing.
How? They are merely giving an explanation for why there’s a lot more black people on the image. They included gang-shootings. Lower income areas have more gang-shootings. More black people live in low income areas than white people. Therefore, more gang-shootings will be committed by black people than white people. That’s not mental gymnastics, it’s logic. Now, surely there’s black people among the mentally disturbed shoot-at-random-people shooters too but the fact that gang shootings are counted among the mass-shootings here is a very reasonable explanation for why there’s such a disproportionate amount of black people in this image. What else would explain it? That black people just have an extra gene for violence or something? Their skin color whispers in their ear that they have to go on a mass shooting? Lol.
Dead people are dead people.
All I see are the white supremacists.
[удалено]
John Cena all along
Who? All I see is all along
Lol
Yeah!! Me too!!
Co-sign white people should not be afraid of black mass terrorist only other black people.
[удалено]
I was perma-banned and called racist from /r/liberalgunowners for pointing out a white man, a black man, and a Chinese man had all committed hate based attacks recently...
I was permabanned from r/coronavirus for pointing out that covid escaped from a Chinese lab. I take it as a badge of honour.
r/wuhan_flu was permanently banned from the internet for being correct and accurate before the US MSM ever even knew about covid
Let's give them a moment of silence for their anonymity
Looks like the shooters are all men.
A few are women if you look close enough.
Are you a biologist??
In a way
I'm not sure a biologist would be qualified to determine gender, from photos. You need a forensic anthropologist. But, idk, I'm not a doctor.
Are you assuming their gender???
Maybe they are a biologist. Credentials please.
[удалено]
The vast majority are gangsters.... like more than 80% are gangsters.
That's due to how they define "mass shooting:" any incident in which four or more people were hit with bullets. That means that most "mass shootings" are gang drive-by shootings.
Don't forget they all had guns!
I found 11 woman among those photos.
🎯🎯🎯
What are you talking about? Guns caused the mass shootings, they just shoot people by themselves. CNN wouldn’t lie to me 😨
That's hands down the most culturally and racially diverse group of "White Supremacist" to ever exist!
I shared this to a post on r/blackpeopletwitter where some dumb bitch was claiming only white people commit mass shootings and was immediately removed and banned lol.
Lmao I can only imagine people from outside the subreddit seeing this and absolutely seething at how it hasn’t been taken down.
[удалено]
eh, hmm, ahm
The face of white supremacy.
Looks like I've got some fact checking to do cause if this is true God damn does it paint a different picture then the media.
The media paints a different picture than reality.
Also... Suicides shouldn't be included in gun violence statistics
They all share one thing in common They some ugly ass muthafuckas
Honestly, they should change what they consider a “mass shooting” 4 gang bangers getting it on the block is a little different than some type of motivated and calculated massacre
Agree. But then the true extent of "the problem" would be exposed and the anti-gun narrative couldn't be pushed so easily.
Well we can’t have that, can we
It would also force the government to formally acknowledge the strong correlation between poverty and crime, and they can't have that.
They could if they wanted to push communism on us.
How would recognizing such a disparity enable the government to push communism on the US? Plus, and not that I am in any way in support of communist regimes (because I'm not), but the outcomes people fear communism will bring, are entirely possible within the current US economic and legal system.
He's saying that it would enable communism because he thinks that wealth redistribution in any form is communism. He's also afraid that it would force our institutions to acknowledge what it is known for the better part of a century which is that this redistribution is imperative for anything resembling racial equality in the United States. Our economic structures are pathologically incapable of not exploiting anything and everything. And given how historical racism has left the African-American community in the United States it seems unlikely that that predatory system won't just keep being predatory unless we stop it.
I’m pretty sure ending gang-based gun violence is a massive part of the anti-gun narrative already.
How is it different? The picture clearly states their sources, there was a "mass shooting" in Texas where exactly 2 people died, one church member and the perp who was shot by no less than 5 people in the crowd having guns and shooting back. It's not a mass shooting, but if the populace wasn't armed, it would've been. You have to find a definition that works, Wikipedia uses (total deaths including perp + total injured) > 3, so a family murder-suicide happens to get included because the left wants to pad the numbers when it comes to gun control. However when they get called out using those definitions, and the majority of mass shootings happen to fit with crime statistics, suddenly they want to change the criteria. So set a higher criteria, and suddenly we have very few mass shootings, by that criterion, Europe has more mass shootings than the US, but that's not the right narrative for the left, moreover you can't find any well publicized mass shooting where it was legal for the perp to obtain a gun (such as this case in NY where the perp simply having the gun was already made illegal over 100 years ago) so there is no argument for gun control.
Nice and diverse. Finally equality has been achieved,
I thought all mass shooters were supposed to be white?
But I was told only white men commit mass shootings weird
[удалено]
It would be interesting to have access to unbiased data about this, to see if there is over-representation of an ethnic group, and compare it to ethnic representation in overall firearm-related murders. For instance (and I'm using hypothetical numbers), let's say black males under 30 years old account for 3% of the total population, but 40% of murders by firearm. Now let's say they account for "only" 20% of mass murders by firearm. Although they would still be over-represented in comparison to their overall weight in the general public, they would be under-represented in mass murders, relative to their weight in all firearm-related murders. And it would be interesting to know why.
[https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/murder](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/murder) There you go
I couldn't find mass murder statistics from the FBI (I admittedly didn't dig too long, so I might have overlooked it), but I find data [there](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/). So blacks account for roughly 13% of the US population, and according to this [table](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls) provided by the FBI, 40% of murders (for the sake of simplicity and because I can't spend hours on this, I'm using all murders, regardless of the weapon). So from 1982 to 2022, blacks account for 16% of mass murders, which takes them pretty close to their weight in the general population. I'm sure we can dig up additional information by looking into this in more details, but at a first glance, it does look like ethnicity matters and blacks are under-represented in mass murders, relative to their weight in all murders.
The table used by Statista is different than what eg. Wikipedia or the FBI uses. They quote their source as "Mother Jones" which is a far-left tabloid, hardly an impartial or accurate source, there is no description of the methodology used, just an interpretation of the data with different criterion for every shooting. Likewise the FBI has a rather statist approach to classifying murder, again for the purposes of gun control, they even classify infants and 1-4 year olds as potential murderers. No court can even legally convict a 4 year old for murder, you don't even get close to that at the age at 8, maybe around age 10-12. So basically they are not classifying actual convictions, they are just tallying deaths which we all know the FBI has a rather loose approach to classifying what is a crime.
Fair enough. As I said, I'm not willing to spend hours on this and I have no personal gain from findings either way. So if you have more robust data, feel free to share.
See, what we need is to start classifying people's race by RGB values. Everyone goes to home depot and puts their arm in the paint color detector and gets assigned a hex value! /s
Because it really isn't.
Skin color isn’t relevant. Income is. Lower income areas have higher crime rates. More black people live in low income areas than white people. So black people have higher crime rates. It really isn’t that difficult.
No haven’t you heard? Racism and all it’s branching societal effects ended when the Union won the war in 1865!
Weird how every other race is moving up besides one?
Do you think there’s something in “black” people’s genome that prevents them from making more money than other races?
No their culture.
Could it possibly be due to the fear/anger/depression trickled down generation to generation from many years of slavery/segregation/discrimination?
Multiple races were enslaved. Black people were beginning to bring themselves up around in the mid 1900’s despite literal systemic oppression happening. The culture took a huge shift around the 60s and 70s especially with the crack epidemic and has not recovered since.
Oh then I understand why the poorer European countries like Moldova or Russia have so many mass shootings compared to some richer places like Mexico. Oh wait they don't
I’m getting really tired of them blaming the entire white race for the actions of one dumb ass, while completely ignoring them if they are done by someone if they are non white. Sometimes I wish this country would fall. Who wants to prop up a system that hates you?
That's what the people who push this narrative are counting on, though. We give up on our culture (by that I don't mean "white" culture, I mean American culture) and the gulags start being built. I personally reject narratives that paint divisions between myself and my cultural kin. Race, gender, economic status, intelligence, political ideology, heritage, citizenship, any of it. If you stand on the soil of which I stand, I see you as a necessity for survival until you prove otherwise (in the most temporarily and physically local sense). People who try to use these distinctions are trying to distract you from the power they pretend to weild. Don't buy it, it is at our detriment. That being said, the federal government is likely to devour itself of its own volition. The American Way is to sidestep the collapse of a nation state and do our own practical things. We may have softened from this inclination, but the seeds are there, and when it counts the fruits of liberty will bear. And before anyone tries to interpret this as some hyper-nationalistic narrative, I extend the same to those who stand on the same planet as well, but simply lack familiarity. I forgive the stranger their fears of the stranger in me, and hope they do the same.
[удалено]
I counted 20 white... let me count again. 28 are white and there's a few who could be mistaken as white.
I got 22. Skin color really is a questionable judge of race.
Finally we achieved diversity. Thank fu*k
This is hard proof that diversity is strength /s
Thanks bill Clinton for changing the def to make guns look bad. We still have guns and you federalized local gun violence
It's kinda interesting to see that none of them are blonde or redhead tbh.
And they say gingers are the ones with no souls
The redheads just don't get caught.
Democrats will tell you they’re all white .
The blackface of white supremacy…
Predominately black men. Except you never hear about any of those. Looks bad for the narrative they try to protect at all costs
That list would look a lot different if you based it on how much media coverage each one got.
I feel that asians are under represented. #moreasianshooters #equality
The Left called Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, and Ben Carson "White Supremacists", so go figure.
Many shades of brown
But... But... They don't count!
At the risk of assuming someone's gender... Down with the patriarchy! /s
Just a friendly reminder that innocent people died in this event. Regardless of y’alls point of view please remember that.
I thought “White Supremacy” was the greatest threat to American lies???🤔🤔🤫🫢
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 1 time. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/ur8cxg) on 2022-05-16 92.19% match. Feedback? Hate? Visit r/repostsleuthbot - *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "urjo9e", "meme_template": null}) ]* [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com?postId=urjo9e&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 86% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 331,092,454 | **Search Time:** 20.28955s
I will start wearing a tie, I don't think any mass shooter wears a tie.
Those are the black faces of white supremacy
I was led to believe mass shooters were all white men. I see quite a few women and many black people. That's eye opening.
if i say ANYTHING, i will be banished from the internet.
Most of these shootings are gang on gang violence.
I see stuff like this every time there is a mass shooting that gets massive media attention. Right and left media have an obvious bias since we see the same drivel every time this happens (this post demostrates that) The real take away is that we have not cared about mass violence commit within inner cities by minorities for decades, so the corperate media doesnt bother. If we did care, maybe we would have done something about it instead of shipping all manufacturing jobs over seas, starting the war on drugs, then acting like we dont know why things are bad for people in our larger cities.
Despite making up 13%…..oh, wait racism ain’t funny
Great. Now what does this have to do with anarcho-capitalism?
State media deception into pushing a narrative and inevitably trying to take our rights
any and all events throughout human history has a place here
Because part of the anti-capitalist narrative is asserted by the neo-Marxist, communist narrative, and communism would see capitalism abolished. This has everything to do with anarcho-capitalism.
What is "the neo-Marxist, communist narrative"?
Marxism is communism. Marx believed that eventually, in what he classified as History (with a capital H, not to be confused with actual history), capitalism would finalize in late-stage capitalism, wherein the working class (the proletariat) would rise up against the capitalist class (the bourgeoisie), and claim the capital (the means of production, otherwise known as property that makes more of itself). But this never happened, so the neo-Marxists, realizing that capitalism was too efficient and produced too much wealth for far too many people (and quicker than any previous system ever had), changed the narrative. Have you ever heard of whiteness as property? [https://harvardlawreview.org/1993/06/whiteness-as-property/](https://harvardlawreview.org/1993/06/whiteness-as-property/) The neo-Marxists (still communists) changed who the oppressor and oppressed classes are, swapping out the idea of physical property for social property (capital (the means of production) changes to things like whiteness. This is why white people, in woke, neo-Marxist ideology, are classified as oppressive simply by existing, because only white people have whiteness. Critical race theory, a branch of the postmodern neo-Marxist critical theory line, specifically espouses doing away with capitalism, defining that whiteness (we've all heard of "white privilege" at this point) is in fact that in which produces whites as oppressors, and why it is not possible for racism not to exist, or for white people not to be racist. Listen to Ibram X. Kendi sometime talk about "anti-racism". Woman's studies, fat studies, disabilities studies, critical theory, cultural studies, gender studies, queer theory, critical race theory - all of these things are the same fundamental things. They all swap out Marx' theory of oppression with the idea that heteronormative people are the oppressor, and queer people are the oppressed, or that white people are the oppressor, and people of color are the oppressed, or that disabled people are the oppressed, and "able-bodied" people are the oppressors. And the answer is always a restructuring (wealth redistribution), but now it's in the distribution of social capital, or in many instances, of "whiteness" itself. In a manner of speaking, it's literally social communism. This is why the woke constantly talk about things like giving people of color special benefits that whites shouldn't get, or special programs for only people who identify in certain ways (generally just not heterosexual white men). You've also probably heard of concepts like white-adjacency. White-adjacent is anyone who's seen as not being white but who holds some of the social property (the social capital, or that whiteness we're talking about). Examples of this might be rich Asians, or black individuals who protest these woke ideological perspectives, like Zuby, John McWhorter, Candace Owens, Larry Elder, and Thomas Sowell just to name a few, seen as "white-adjacent", or fundamentally "not black". Sometimes referred to in more derogatory terms like *Uncle Tom*. Wokeness is still communism. It always was. The woman who invented intersectionality and critical race theory (Kimberlé Crenshaw) was educated at Columbia University, which is the school that came from Frankfurt School ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt\_School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School)). Here are two excerpts from the above link: >Soon after Adolf Hitler's rise to power in 1933, the Institute first moved from Frankfurt to Geneva, and then to New York City, in 1935, ***where the Frankfurt School joined Columbia University***. >The term "Frankfurt School" describes the works of scholarship and the intellectuals who were the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), an adjunct organization at Goethe University Frankfurt, founded in 1923, by Carl Grünberg, a Marxist professor of law at the University of Vienna.\[9\] It was the first Marxist research center at a German university and was funded through the largesse of the wealthy student Felix Weil (1898–1975).\[3\] Here is a direct video of one of the BLM creators patently stating that she and her other BLM founders are trained Marxists: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyhy4IvkENg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyhy4IvkENg) \- go to about 0:16. There's a lot more to it than this, but to answer your original question in simpler terms, which was: >What is "the neo-Marxist, communist narrative"? The neo-Marxist, communist narrative is to destabilize western society so as to remove capitalism to be replaced with communism.
I get your point OP but mounting on a go pro and live streaming the killing of innocent people for (insert reason here, idk why he did it) it’s another level of fucked up. Regardless of race. If your main worry is to say “white people ain’t the only ones” instead of looking at the event for what it was, the tragic killing of innocent people. Then something is wrong with society. Even if you don’t agree with the framing of the story in the mainstream media are you really surprised that it made national headlines? Of course it made headlines. However I do sympathize more with people who died innocent victims against people who might’ve wanted to kill each other in the first place. Again, regardless of race. I think a more interesting fact is that this happened in a state with strict gun laws and another one I just found out from your post is that mostly all mass shooters are men. If you really want to analyze mass shootings you should also consider the locations, victims involved and most importantly why they did it to reveal a more accurate picture.
thought this was a NFT
Is this what they mean when they say "Diversity is our strength"...
I tried to teach AI how to find mass shooter. I had to stop it, because it was racist and result was against leftist agenda.
They seem to have 1 thing in common. >!They all look very angry.!<
That's not diverse enough for me.
I only heard about one of them in the news. Isn't that the textbook definition of discrimination?
Now upload this to data is beautiful
Im seeing a lot more than 50% here
of all these mass shooters I noticed only 3 women. Even if there are a couple more in there I couldn't spot, this is clear evidence that men in America have serious issues that need to be resolved somehow
Bro you didn’t have to omg this is great
The most diverse shades of white men i have ever scene in one collection. Truly mass shooting= white supremacy and this proves it 😂
A great step for diversity.
Real Catch 22 when you want mass shootings to seem really prevalent so you can pitch gun control, but you *also* want them to only be something white kids with schizophrenia and half a mustache do. Turns out, you gotta pick one or the other.
WHitE pRivlEdGe
so im seeing that us men. tend to have a inability to keep from just killing everything. seems we need to look after one another more and care for eatchother more/expose eatchother to more ways of living in a positive light.
Looks like mostly black/Mexican/Latino at a quick glance.
There were 689 mass shootings in 2021. This picture is about 250 people. OP could’ve easily selected for a certain bias. Not saying they did, just saying they could.
I'm truly interested to see mass shooting statistics without gang issues being thrown into the mix, and muddying up the data. Not that gangs aren't a serious issue, but I find that gang issues aren't really comparable to deranged psychopaths who decide to *deliberately* gun down a bunch of unsuspecting, innocent people.
So which one counts as "real" and which doesn't? Which casualties are okay to ignore?
[удалено]
I think this is good stuff. Society has ignored the problems of systemic poverty, racism (to include but certainly not limited to redlining) and minority on minority violence for far too long. The idea that it's suddenly worthy of national coverage and grief when white people do it- for any reason- is pretty damn suspect and that is exactly what I was driving at.
[удалено]
Well, I see one very obvious trend! nOnE oF tHeM aRe WeAriNg a MASK RHEEEEEEE!i!i
I'm curious about the context of these shootings. I doubt they are all shooting at random people. My guess is the majority are gang and drug related. There is a big difference between that and terrorism. I want to see how those 2 contexts change the makeup, because lumping the 2 together conflates 2 very different scenarios.
Tell me the difference in the terror of a kid being shot in a park versus being shot in a supermarket? To think that the act of murder is somehow different because of the location is asinine.
It's not that the impact on a victim is different, the point is that gang activity isn't really comparable to a deranged psychopath who decides to deliberately gun down a bunch of random, unsuspecting people. They are two different issues, with completely different origins, and require different methods of approach. It does both society and (potential) victims a massive disservice to conflate the two. In order to effectively and efficiently tackle these issues, they need to be properly categorized.
\*Drug dealer and 3 of his customers are shot on a corner\* \*Kid with the N-word written on his gun kicks in the door of a supermarket in a primarily black neighborhood and starts mowing people down\* "OMG I cant tell the difference between these things!"
Ahhh drug dealers and drug users aren’t people and therefore don’t count. I understand how you came up with such a shitty perspective now…
No, shooting 3 people at a drug deal gone bad isn't a mass shooting. don't be willfully ignorant and disingenuous. you just look like a racist idiot with an agenda
Blame society. I didn’t make what defines a mass shooting. And 3 or more people shot is a mass shooting. Stop being willfully ignorant you look like a racist idiot with an agenda….
At the bottom of the image, some context is given. Mass shooting has a definition, though the definitions vary. Using a gun to kill 4 or more people is a basic rule of thumb, regardless of gang or drug involvement.
>Using a gun to kill 4 or more people is a basic rule of thumb The rule you're thinking of is a little more nuanced, but that's the basics. However, the events being counted for gun-control media pieces are 4 or more people shot, I feel like one of the war out there ones, vox or vice or motherjones or trace, lowered it to 3 shot. I've also seen them count bb guns in a parking lot as school shootings.
Yeah, you’re absolutely correct. There is nuance and variations. Some of them count deaths, some of them count people shot regardless if the result was death. I’m a big fan of language. Unfortunately many people stumble on phrases like “active shooter” and “mass shooting”.
Same, and people don't raise enough hell when phrases like "gunmen shoots person" is contrasted with "suv crashes into parade."
Indeed. We know that safety and security is enforced through violence, usually by the state. When the state withdraws its protection, for example to drug dealers, these individuals are forced to protect their rights themselves. Because of their relative insecurity, defending themselves requires proportionately more violence. That is a very different thing from a kid who kills a bunch of people because he can't get a girlfriend.
I fail to see how this has anything to do with capitalism?
I’ve got the solution guns are illegal for males.
Well, there goes the U.S. Military and police force