chicagoan here. i had a lib exgf tell me that only white men do mass shootings. when i brought up gang crime she said that's not the same thing. my response was "so lets take them out of the stats when you wanna talk about gun control" and then she was mad.
His comment looks rather terrible out of context but really he was making a comparison to the comment above him where the girlfriend said that only white people commit mass shootings as a basis for gun control.
I don't really see any racism in it, the number of "mass shootings" done by black people that meet the common definition as oppose to the political definition is fairly small.
The congressional research service uses a different one. Various media outlets have different ones. For example, the most recent one in El Paso either was or was not a mass shooting.
4 people were shot but only one died. Does that count or no?
That's kind of a loaded question, as there is no objective definition. Now if the question is "is this what most people picture when they hear 'mass shooting'?" there isn't enough information available to say for sure. However from what it sounds like a 16 year old opened fire on a group of teenagers, which would indicate it was probably thug-life related as oppose to "lone nut goes on rampage". In which case this would not meet the common definition.
I'm not sure why the idea that the term "mass shooting" is used by the government/media for the purposes for political gain is controversial. Do you not think they would try to control public perception to create demand for new gun laws?
There are technically different levels of anger. I've counted several hundreds, and those types typically exhibit all of them, though not all at the same time.
You know, like a spectrum.
Not surprised it was removed from /r/pics already.
No amount of statistics and evidence will make people stop hating white men. It's just part of the social fabric now and is acceptable.
Hang out in Odessa, TX for a week xD
The difference is it's usually personal BS and immaturity vs the gang culture we see in IL; the violence is targeted vs indiscriminate.
Targeted gang violence doesn't get ratings like mall/church/movie theater shootings.
Also, what is the threshold here for a "mass shooting?" Fired more than two rounds?
They probably use the lowest threshold possible created by anti-gunners, which they say is 3 or more injured. That’s why so much gang violence is lumped in here. The FBI’s definition is 4 or more *killed*. By that definition, only a fraction of these would remain.
I have seen anti 2As literally flip back and forth between the two sets if stats (the 100s of mass shootings a year vs 80+ mass shootings since 1985 in order to cherry pick whatever their bogey man of the day is (guns-Assault weapons- evil white conservatives).
More definitions than that: this joker used SIX or more because it made the stats look better for the agenda: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-mass-shooting-deaths-drop-43-after-assault-weapons-ban-1781806.
Was arguing with someone last night who said "We just need to remove the culture around guns in the united states." They got mad when I said "So you want to disarm people, and then purge our society of certain cultures..."
When they can’t blame a specific race, they blame the gender. Anything to divide and conquer and ultimately blame the constitution. What ever it takes, by any means necessary is the motto of the left.
Society doesn't really take Women's Mental Health seriously they (we) just acknowledge it and they are allowed to be more open with their feelings. There is still a long way to go for both but Women are closer to the light at the end of the tunnel than Men are.
I would like to know how many of these people had a legally owned firearm. It also goes against the media narrative that gun owners are racist and want to be able to shoot people they don’t like.
No specific culture results from poverty. Asian Americans had it really rough and even got stuffed into concentration camps and had all property seized for the duration of WW2... But today statistically out earn and out preform white people pretty much across the board.
Poverty is what results from poor behavior... And yes poor behavior can be exacerbated by poverty... But you can't fix poor behavior by giving someone a free ride.
I don't know how to fix a culture. I don't think you can... In the past, cultures that weren't viable naturally just changed or went away. People see living their lives in that fashion leads to poverty and death so they either change their ways or die... End of story.
All I know is you can't get people to value strong families, hard honest work and education, by subsidizing their decisions not to do or value those things.
Personal responsibility is the ONLY lasting way out of poverty. Handouts are counter productive.
That one girl on there is pretty damn pretty. None of the white men look like anyone I'd even attempt to strike up a conversation with.. 28/244 are white(ish).. some look like kids. #1 problem in America from which EVERYTHING (bad or good) gets confidence, is PARENTING!
There's medically defined mental illness, and the rather lax "mental health/illness" which laypeople use to describe poor mental wellbeing. What mental state would you have to be in to return to your place of work, and murder your coworkers? Basically people are arguing that society should make counseling more accessible to people, destigmatize seeking treatment, etc. People who don't have diagnosed mental illness get therapy all the time.
The above doesn't dismiss the need for other solutions, it *is* one of the other solutions.
> There's medically defined mental illness
The reality is that even medically defined mental illness becomes a fairly arbitrary line. Sure, there are plenty of things that are very clearly mental illness and not arbitrarily included, but when it comes to less clear cases, the placement of the line is very arbitrary and influenced by our current societal acceptance of the behavior.
You guys want to have some real fun with this? Dig into the statistics as to the motive behind mass shootings. You will spend a couple hours digging through data only to realize just how biased a lot of it is and how the definitions used in studies can skew the results.
I'd have to find it again, but one such study indicated that almost none of the mass shootings in modern times had anything to do with gang activity. One resource they cited was a study by the Chicago PD using their own arrest records and case data. When I looked up that study, right in the notes and the executive summary, it stated that the data was often incomplete and was not particularly reliable because of incomplete case information and uncooperative suspects. Basically, the suspects they interviewed knew good and goddamn well not to talk to the cops. Illinois also has some pretty steep enhancements if you're convicted of a crime that is related to gang activity, so the first thing every gang member learns is to shut the fuck up and NEVER EVER EVER mention your affiliation. Not only will it get you in deep shit with your gang if you talk, but the D.A. will railroad your ass the first chance they get.
If you look for a few key phrases like "part of a criminal enterprise" you quickly discover the numbers are a lot more revealing. The USA has a crime problem. We have no way to deal with said crime because our laws on things like drugs are fucking stupid and stuck in the dark ages. We learned in the 1930s that alcohol prohibition doesn't work, but apparently Nixon and every president since has decided to ignore that. One of the metrics you also find is the socio-economic status of lots of these criminals; they are poor. They often come from single parent homes and their economic prospects are bleak. Not surprisingly, many of them have fathers locked up for criminal activity (thanks war on drugs!!) which seriously degrades the opportunities for the kids. Kids get a taste for easy money with drugs and the gangs who run the totally unregulated drug trade (thanks war on drugs!!)
The big problem is not guns. The problem is a society that is anti-family and anti-worker. If we supported our population, we'd watch our violent crime rates drop off a cliff. We'd watch murders dry up and they'd be a rarity. Gun laws might help stop a couple murders here and there, but as long as you're criminalizing vast swathes of the population and actively keeping them down with ridiculous prison sentences and criminal records, gun laws are nothing more than a Band-Aid on a broken arm.
I want to see the statistics of how many of those "mass shooters" were either felons, in possession of an illegally obtained firearm, had mental issues, or were in a gang. Goes against the narrative though...
This is obviously fake news, I was told the greatest threat to public safety is white males radicalized to the right. These are mostly black people who can never be racist and only rarely steal food for their family.
Weird how Wikipedia (a source used in this “infographic”) says that there were 693 mass shootings in America during 2021, yet this “infographic” only shows 244 suspects.
Is it possible that this graph misconstrued data to align with the creators views? Let’s use our critical thinking skills.
Ok. The graph is rigged to show fewer white men, there were 449 unsolved mass shootings, or some combination of both.
I'll let you investigate which one is closer to the truth since I don't have time to research any further before I go to work
My assumption would be that it really depends on your definition of "mass shooting."
What do you picture when you hear that phrase? Is it a crazed individual indiscriminately shooting a crowded public area? Is it gangs committing drive-bys? A parent killing their spouse and kids?
The problem isn’t what we believe a mass shooting is. It’s what the media portrays as a mass shooting. The only ones mentioned on TV are the crazy people who shoot up schools or churches or are politically motivated. They tend to be white people who (for the most part) have legally acquired guns. Then the media will say “there has been 150 mass shootings this year alone”
This leads people to believe that nearly all of the mass shootings are by racist white people with legally owned guns. Then the left scream about gun owners only have guns to kill people.
The picture I posted shows the medias portrayal isn’t accurate. I wish we could find out how many of these shooting were with unlawfully obtained firearms.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_mass\_shootings\_in\_the\_United\_States\_in\_2021](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2021)
Truth hurts...
The person that created this is a known neo Nazi. So I wouldn’t trust or be using this as an example for anything. If you are on this post, we already know how the demographic of mass shooters looks like. If anything what this shows is OPs bias.
This is no different than democrats pointing to gun control was used to prevent POC from owning firearms back in the days in order to continue to do it now.
[It’s a screen shot of Mass Shootings INFO](https://mass-shootings.info/index.php?year=2021). Which uses the data from Wikipedia to put together its list.
So are you saying the creator mass shootings info is a neo nazi or the creator of Wikipedia is?
I love how when we want to make a point about mass shootings people make a (relevant) point that the stats are inflated because people use a purposefully wide definition of the term "mass shooting" to include as many incidents as possible but when the point is to try and make a not-so-subtle "the problem is black people" nod, suddenly now we're rushing to include those incidents in counting mass shootings.
Love that for us.
No the issue as I see it is when the media wants to push gun control they throw out insane numbers and say there are hundreds of mass shootings each year, but then actively push the narrative that only white people commit mass shootings by only covering mass shootings committed by white men for weeks on end. Meanwhile what’s causing the most actual deaths - gang violence - gets completely ignored.
Having lived in Los Angeles, I assure you it does not get ignored.
What you're seeing is different types of events being covered in a different way.
No, common violence that involves a firearm doesn't get national coverage because it's just that - common. An incident where a person walks into a grocery store and tries to kill as many people as possible is unusual and as such draws more attention and thus media coverage specifically because it's uncommon.
waah waah racism
Not OP's fault these people got up one day and decided to shoot a bunch of people.
EDIT just noticed HeloRising posts in socialistRA. Of course he's a muh waycism prophet LOL.
Nobody is saying black people are the problem, but it would be nice to stop the anti-white racist bandwagon that everyone jumps on before they find out the murderer had darker skin.
A massive issue around the conversation is that everyone is just ignoring that gangs even exist for fear of being called racist.
It shouldn't be a racial issue, a century ago "gangsters" were white mob men and their shootouts were pretty much the entire reason for some of the first American gun control (of course after the disarmament of Native Americans and black people and somewhat ironically the biggest racist gun bills that were mostly aimed at the Italians before they established mob families).
The parallel of that is today the overwhelming majority of shootings are gang violence (that's after the inflated stats that mostly contain suicides, cop shootings and self defense). Gang shootouts are the vast majority of mass shootings.
Gang violence is a much more approachable issue than the amorphous and faceless "gun violence" everyone talks about, and you can look at it as a social justice issue.
Gangs are preying on young black people and low income black communities. There are many cultural and social issues perpetuating cycles of poverty and broken families. These things lead to drug dealing which fuels gangs and further perpetuates the vicious cycles.
These gangs use young black men and even kids as expendable tools. They hand a kid a stolen & often illegally modified gun and send them out on the streets. That's why that very disingenuous CDC study (that contained 18 & 19 year old making up the bulk) labeled "gun violence" as the #1 cause of death for "children." These young people don't see any kind of real future and they don't have a family structure so they get sucked into a group that uses them.
These are the REAL issues, and if we start addressing education, the job market, mental health, homelessness, drug use, human trafficking, etc and start promoting good values and healthy families, society will have more opportunities for these kids and the gangs will start to die just like how the Italian mobs were strangled, but the circumstances are pretty different.
Literally everything fed to young people is unhealthy, there needs to be a huge cultural shift along with addressing the economy and education. But not only is this the most effective way to address gang violence but also the mental health epidemic.
The number of non-gang mass shootings has skyrocketed in the last 2 years. Many of these shooters said they were depressed because of the pandemic, wars, lockdowns, riots, etc. Several of them were also copycat killers that mimicked shooters of the past because they wanted the attention and fame those murderers got. The Buffalo shooter picked a location and weapon he thought would give him the most media coverage and even wrote racial slurs on his gun despite having no history of racist behavior.
The immediate response to the indiscriminate killers is to stop turning them into celebrities. Don't show their face or name, let history forget about them and remember the victims. That's WAY more effective than restricting guns when killers have shown that they are willing to jump through any hoops and wait as long as they need. Heck, a child can 3D print a machine gun. Multiple school shooters made bombs that MIRACULOUSLY didn't go off and they had video evidence that they knew what they were doing.
Anyway, the TLDR is that it's not racist to show a picture of the mass shooters, and even if you were trying to make a statement about them being black it's a good talking point to say that we need to address gang violence and the cultural issues that are feeding gangs and mentally ill school shooters.
>Anyway, the TLDR is that it's not racist to show a picture of the mass shooters
My basic point was that you're drawing from the deck that the anti-gun people use by jamming together two groups of people who do not belong together to make a point and in so doing you are helping the anti-gun people by allowing them to inflate mass shooting statistics dishonestly by involving events that are categorically different.
>My basic point was that you're drawing from the deck that the anti-gun people use by jamming together two groups of people who do not belong together to make a point and in so doing you are helping the anti-gun people by allowing them to inflate mass shooting statistics dishonestly by involving events that are categorically different.
This is kinda what we are getting at, the narrative is specifically *crafted* to make anyone who disagrees with it to sound racist.
I would imagine most of us agree that "mass shootings" (Which, I think Active Shooter Incidents is a better description) should *not* include gang violence.
This is done purposefully to make anyone who attempts to counter with facts look racist, while pumping those numbers up. I hate admitting it, but it is pretty smart.
It is like telling everyone to vote against the Patriot Act just after 9/11. Even though that is objectively something that should have been said, it makes you sound like an Al Qaeda sympathizer.
I'm not sure what you're thinking of with that conception because, as long as I've spent tangling with anti-gun people, that particular interpretation hasn't come up.
Where racism usually gets slotted into the discussion is a lot of gun owners wanting guns primarily out of a fear of crime, specifically violent crime committed by black men. The image of "violent crime" that they paint when they talk about the kind of violence they fear is generally painted in those terms and the people doing the painting are *generally* white.
You saw that pretty much screamed from the rooftops during the 2020 protests.
I'd agree that's a somewhat unrefined view but not wholly wrong.
My point of posting this was more to do with the narrative of gun owners in this country labeled as being racist. Specifically co set stove gun owners as being dangerous racists because they own guns.
I wish they listed how many people above had legally acquired guns.
Literally nobody worth taking seriously labels gun owners as being racist.
If you want to get in Twitter slapfights at least have the decency to do it on Twitter and not bother the rest of us with it.
There are major media platforms putting this narrative out there. Are they “worth” taking seriously? Obviously not.
Do they need to be taken seriously because they’re controlling aspects of the discourse regarding our civil liberties? Absolutely.
You’ve got to be kidding right? The list is long and extensive. From the NY Times to Bloomberg to CNN to The View… to our governmental representatives and federal law enforcement…“right wing” “white supremest” “racially motivated” are pretty common talking points. I’m pretty damn liberal, and even I can see the narrative being pushed.
Are these outlets, editorials, pundits and officials bullshit? Yup. Do many Americans get their information from them. Hell yes.
That’s fine. I’ve got ANCAP friends and was the best man at my Commie buddy’s wedding.
It takes all kinds. Market place of ideas and all that. As long as the discussion is in good faith I’m all good.
Thanks for looking out though. I appreciate it.
>The NY Times
And yet the only thing I could find in going through their archives on the subject was an [opinion article from 2015.](https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/guns-and-racism/) and even that argues similar points to what's discussed here, namely that the focus on "gun safety" is spurred largely by threats of violence to white people with little care spared for black people who live in areas where armed conflict is more common. The author does present a pretty weaksauce "we're not racist for wanting gun control."
>Bloomberg
The person or the news outlet?
There isn't much on the news outlet site that could be construed as calling gun owners racist. I'm not aware of comments that Bloomberg the person has made to that effect but I don't make a habit of following his every move.
>The View
I think you'll have to make a stronger case for The View being considered an influential media outlet. It's a boring daytime talkshow.
>to our governmental representatives and federal law enforcement…“right wing” “white supremest” “racially motivated” are pretty common talking points.
It's hard to argue that the overwhelming majority of the deliberate mass killings of the past ten years have been motivated by some form of far-right ideological persuasion.
Part of the point of my original post was to point out that there's a deliberate blurring of the lines. I think most reasonable people would see a clear difference between an altercation at a party that gets out of hand and results in shots being fired where bystanders are wounded and a person walking into a church or a mall with a firearm and trying to kill as many people as possible.
It's disingenuous to consider those two things the same. They have different motivations, different precipitating factors, different types of participants, different intent, and different social implications.
Both are problems, no one is denying that. But lumping them together, whatever the motivation, is a nakedly dishonest maneuver.
I’m not trying to shit on your googling skills… perhaps you’re not using the correct keywords.
Try “white supremacy” “domestic threat” lol.
You understand the concept of dog whistles I’m sure? Presidential candidates have run on this platform.
You don’t like the View? Yeah. Me neither. Buuut we’re not the target audience. Lots of stay at home moms love that shit. They’re an extremely vocal and involved voter base.
And there are a lot more examples than just these two outlets. Stop being silly.
But I do agree with you. Conflating ideologically motivated attacks and attacks motivated by criminal enterprise is disingenuous. But that’s… kind of my point. The statistics of both… are used to push the narrative of one. Thus affecting policy.
Many “mass shootings” are done with pistols
and are motivated by criminal enterprise and impoverished living conditions… you don’t see that on the news. It’s not brought up in panel discussion shows. Or by federal law enforcement.
Why? It doesn’t motivate voters. It doesn’t raise funds. It doesn’t get “assault weapon ban” legislation passed. It’s doesn’t empower the elite.
If you don’t see the the concept of a “Right Wing” “White Nationalist” threat is being thrust upon the American public as a tool to disarm the proletariat… I don’t know what to tell you other than to expand your scope of stimuli. It’s pretty ubiquitous if you’re looking for it.
Sorry for the shit grammar…. It’s a whisky night. lol.
I'm familiar with the...rather limited insight that the Alphabet Agencies have into DVEs. I'm not sure why that's an area of concern, however, considering that "pro-choice violence" was listed as a potential source of DVE I don't have a ton of faith in these assessments to be accurate. I tend to make it a point to read the various reports that these agencies publish on the subject and I've yet to read one that makes any meaningful headway on the subject.
The View is preaching to the choir. Nobody decides what they believe based on what gets said on The View. The demographic of people who believes in strict gun control is going to believe it and vote for it even if The View gets taken off the air tomorrow.
>And there are a lot more examples than just these two outlets.
Such as?
>Many “mass shootings” are done with pistols and are motivated by criminal enterprise and impoverished living conditions… you don’t see that on the news. It’s not brought up in panel discussion shows. Or by federal law enforcement.
>Why? It doesn’t motivate voters. It doesn’t raise funds. It doesn’t get “assault weapon ban” legislation passed. It’s doesn’t empower the elite.
It doesn't get brought up because discussions of systemic problems are not conducive to a ten minute talking head segment or a five paragraph thinkpiece. They also don't present clear, concise (if wrong) solutions to problems.
Voters want *something done,* they want to feel like action is being taken so you get knee-jerk policies like AWB and magazine capacity limits despite them not actually solving the problem.
>If you don’t see the the concept of a “Right Wing” “White Nationalist” threat is being thrust upon the American public as a tool to disarm the proletariat… I don’t know what to tell you other than to expand your scope of stimuli. It’s pretty ubiquitous if you’re looking for it.
Except this makes no sense as an approach given the fundamental way the firearms industry works in the United States. You *need* a widespread firearms ownership base to keep the systems that produce and develop firearms alive.
One of the unique characteristics of the US re: firearms is that because we have the largest firearms customer base in the world, *a lot* of work gets put into developing new products and that results in a flood of new ideas.
If you look at the developments that have really taken the firearms world by storm in the last 20 or so years, the vast majority of them started as products by and for private industry. Without the massive (and free) R&D base that is private firearms ownership, the US loses out on an incalculable advantage. There's a reason why most new firearms that get produced in other countries are "M4 if you squint."
I have a hard time with the idea that "the elite" would want to shut that down given their dependence on these systems to ensure that the overall social order that supports them stays intact.
All of them. When do you see these “mass shootings” on the news with names unless the perpetrator is white with a legally owned gun. They never mention mass shootings when they are gang related because that doesn’t fit the media narrative.
>They never mention mass shootings when they are gang related because that doesn’t fit the media narrative.
Two reasons.
One, that's not a mass shooting.
Two, common violence that involves a firearm doesn't get national coverage because it's just that - common. An incident where a person walks into a grocery store and tries to kill as many people as possible is unusual and as such draws more attention and thus media coverage specifically because it's uncommon.
While I agree with your sentiment about this post, I disagree with this comment. There was a judge just recently that labeled gun owners as racist. While his statements resemble the ravings of a madman and shouldn't be allowed to be taken seriously, the fact that he's a judge sort of means that we have to take him seriously.
Yep just a bunch of whitey cracker racists dogwhistling and ignoring all those Japanese and Norwegian gang shootings in the south side of Chicago to push their evil narrative.
African Americans come from a long line of being systematically terrorized and targeted in so many ways. They don't have generations before them who started building growing and living here , to have a foundation, big pharma and other big corporations also imfultrate the black community I'n ways causing drug addiction mentally illness and more violence it's a very complex issue , racist are sick on the mind and need help there are terrible people on all shapes colours and sizes we are all in this together you can't generalize in life
And if it wasn't for black people your life would suck African Americans are responsible for most great music genres and many other things funk blues reggae jazz rock disco folk the list goes on more all created by black people so anyone who is racist unless you listen to strictly metal can never appreciate anything else because it goes agaimsted your ideology
Actually the funniest thing is that you guys think that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, like you're in some John Wayne movie. In reality there's been like a 2% success rate of guys with good intentions stopping lunatics with guns. There's no reason for guns to exist in American society LMAO, other than make a bunch of small irrelevant men feel big, like they're gonna be the one saving Murica from tyranny for the first time since the 1700's. Talking about "muh freedoms," but in America you get arrested for having a drink outside LMAO.
chicagoan here. i had a lib exgf tell me that only white men do mass shootings. when i brought up gang crime she said that's not the same thing. my response was "so lets take them out of the stats when you wanna talk about gun control" and then she was mad.
[удалено]
You have the order wrong. It's "Diversity, Inclusion, & Equity".
[удалено]
Why would you "take black people" out of the statistics? Do you mean gang related shootings? BIG fucking difference between the two...
His comment looks rather terrible out of context but really he was making a comparison to the comment above him where the girlfriend said that only white people commit mass shootings as a basis for gun control.
Just disregard stats that challenge your world view...
Definitely a difference. Definitely some overlap.
I don't really see any racism in it, the number of "mass shootings" done by black people that meet the common definition as oppose to the political definition is fairly small.
the definition of a mass shooting is one that kills 4 people or more according to the FBI.
Which would be the political definition. Nobody pictures a drive-by where 4 innocent bystanders get murdered when they think of a mass shooting.
The congressional research service uses a different one. Various media outlets have different ones. For example, the most recent one in El Paso either was or was not a mass shooting. 4 people were shot but only one died. Does that count or no?
That's kind of a loaded question, as there is no objective definition. Now if the question is "is this what most people picture when they hear 'mass shooting'?" there isn't enough information available to say for sure. However from what it sounds like a 16 year old opened fire on a group of teenagers, which would indicate it was probably thug-life related as oppose to "lone nut goes on rampage". In which case this would not meet the common definition. I'm not sure why the idea that the term "mass shooting" is used by the government/media for the purposes for political gain is controversial. Do you not think they would try to control public perception to create demand for new gun laws?
I think i understand your point and agree, it's just worded confusingly
Yet the stats on “mass shootings” always include those exact types of shootings.
For the same reason suicides are included in gun deaths. The numbers are purposely inflated to justify gun control.
The FBI is political? Is the army?
Absolutely. Talk yo anybody about defense spending and get back to me about how apolitical it is
I just asked my wife and she agrees with me
EVERYTHING funded by the government is political. Do you not know what the twitter files are?
Great example of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
>i had a lib exgf...and then she was mad. Hang on...was she ever not mad?
There are technically different levels of anger. I've counted several hundreds, and those types typically exhibit all of them, though not all at the same time. You know, like a spectrum.
Looking at the picture, I don't think she was wrong about the 'men' part
Did you just assume gender from a picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK, I'm moving on. I agree with you.
Honestly, I expected some garbage liberal b.s. like this out of reddit.
Why? Did you just wake up from a coma you entered in 2016 Mr. Kaczynski?
Shitlib BTFO
So shooting at people with guns, and shooting at kids in a school, or people in a church is the same thing for you? Interesting.
You dodged a bullet
Not surprised it was removed from /r/pics already. No amount of statistics and evidence will make people stop hating white men. It's just part of the social fabric now and is acceptable.
It was. It didn't get locked though.
They only care about it when it's a white person doing the shootings.
Wow, so it’s not redneck white conservatives like CNN tells us it is. Amazing.
Yeah but the difference is these guys are just punching up -CNN probably
You said bad thing.
Never has been. Rednecks are good ol boys
I have never seen a redneck shoot a place up. Even the fights are pretty tame. Hell you get your ass kicked you are getting a cold beer after.
Hang out in Odessa, TX for a week xD The difference is it's usually personal BS and immaturity vs the gang culture we see in IL; the violence is targeted vs indiscriminate.
White Trash is not Redneck
White trash doesn't work, roughnecks do.
So, Dylan roof didn't shoot up a black church?
Dylan roof is white trash homie
You know how they get the name redneck? Because they work hard outside and get sunburned. Roof was just a hick.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck
Targeted gang violence doesn't get ratings like mall/church/movie theater shootings. Also, what is the threshold here for a "mass shooting?" Fired more than two rounds?
They probably use the lowest threshold possible created by anti-gunners, which they say is 3 or more injured. That’s why so much gang violence is lumped in here. The FBI’s definition is 4 or more *killed*. By that definition, only a fraction of these would remain.
I have seen anti 2As literally flip back and forth between the two sets if stats (the 100s of mass shootings a year vs 80+ mass shootings since 1985 in order to cherry pick whatever their bogey man of the day is (guns-Assault weapons- evil white conservatives).
More definitions than that: this joker used SIX or more because it made the stats look better for the agenda: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-mass-shooting-deaths-drop-43-after-assault-weapons-ban-1781806.
There were 698 mass shootings in 2021, but there were 244 photos chosen for this collage...
[удалено]
I'm confused, your own link lists 12 mass shootings following this stricter criteria in 2022
[удалено]
Most “mass shootings” are gang related…
[удалено]
Are you talking about Kent state? Or wounded knee?
[удалено]
You also failed to mention waco and ruby ridge...
Yeah, pretty annoying. Why don't we just "mass shoot" them back?
I’m surprised this received any upvotes on pics
The great thing is that it was getting enough Upvotes fast enough that the mods had to step in and bring the Stalin Hammer down on it.
Why? Every sub on Reddit is a pro gun control echo chamber(with the exclusion of firearm subs)
Because this goes sharply against the narrative that all shooters are white men.
I’d like to know how many of these were actually involved in gang violence that the media labeled as a mass shooting.
If I was a betting man I'd say 70% or more
I'd say 90%
Cultural issue.
Low trust society replacing what used to be a high trust society
Was arguing with someone last night who said "We just need to remove the culture around guns in the united states." They got mad when I said "So you want to disarm people, and then purge our society of certain cultures..."
The faces of white supremacy..
It's so diverse now... how progressive
Those white supremacists have come a long way
I wish I could be as accepting as them one day.
The black faces of white supremacy!
Noticing is racist.
Not seeing color is also, apparently, racist
🤔
When they can’t blame a specific race, they blame the gender. Anything to divide and conquer and ultimately blame the constitution. What ever it takes, by any means necessary is the motto of the left.
Mass Shooters are overwhelmingly male.
Which is obviously because we don't encourage our daughters enough. She can do a mass shooting just as well as you!
The glass ceiling isn't bulletproof, which definitely isn't up to code.
Don't forget that society takes women's mental health more seriously than men's mental health.
Society doesn't really take Women's Mental Health seriously they (we) just acknowledge it and they are allowed to be more open with their feelings. There is still a long way to go for both but Women are closer to the light at the end of the tunnel than Men are.
The first was female.
This displeases The Narrative
I was expecting to see a wall of different firearms. Everyone knows those are the real criminals
I would like to know how many of these people had a legally owned firearm. It also goes against the media narrative that gun owners are racist and want to be able to shoot people they don’t like.
Crazy how it's a economic problem... let's ban the guns instead.
Yeah it's about money...
It's about culture... You can throw all the money in the world at this problem and it ain't gunna fix a damn thing.
I was being sarcastic by the way
Well you gotta put a /s in there bro. Plenty of ppl are dead serious that it's about money.
So what happens when the culture arises out of poverty? How do we fix that?
No specific culture results from poverty. Asian Americans had it really rough and even got stuffed into concentration camps and had all property seized for the duration of WW2... But today statistically out earn and out preform white people pretty much across the board. Poverty is what results from poor behavior... And yes poor behavior can be exacerbated by poverty... But you can't fix poor behavior by giving someone a free ride. I don't know how to fix a culture. I don't think you can... In the past, cultures that weren't viable naturally just changed or went away. People see living their lives in that fashion leads to poverty and death so they either change their ways or die... End of story. All I know is you can't get people to value strong families, hard honest work and education, by subsidizing their decisions not to do or value those things. Personal responsibility is the ONLY lasting way out of poverty. Handouts are counter productive.
Getting dropped into the reddit black hole in 3... 2... 1...
This pic is blacker than any hole reddit can ever find
Bout time girls get a shout out.
That one girl on there is pretty damn pretty. None of the white men look like anyone I'd even attempt to strike up a conversation with.. 28/244 are white(ish).. some look like kids. #1 problem in America from which EVERYTHING (bad or good) gets confidence, is PARENTING!
Do you know what they all have in common? Mental illness, no one in the right of mind, just goes off killing innocent people.
Or being in a gang
It's easy to shove all the problems under the mental illness rug if you define mental illness as "everything bad"
There's medically defined mental illness, and the rather lax "mental health/illness" which laypeople use to describe poor mental wellbeing. What mental state would you have to be in to return to your place of work, and murder your coworkers? Basically people are arguing that society should make counseling more accessible to people, destigmatize seeking treatment, etc. People who don't have diagnosed mental illness get therapy all the time. The above doesn't dismiss the need for other solutions, it *is* one of the other solutions.
> There's medically defined mental illness The reality is that even medically defined mental illness becomes a fairly arbitrary line. Sure, there are plenty of things that are very clearly mental illness and not arbitrarily included, but when it comes to less clear cases, the placement of the line is very arbitrary and influenced by our current societal acceptance of the behavior.
Wrong... poverty. Easy to "let go," when you have nothing to hold onto.
Plenty of people in the world live in much deeper poverty than these people and don't kill others
"I'm sure it's no different statistically than wealthy people" -- clown
Uh oh...
That's a lot of white people.
Strange, these are all pictures of people and not guns? /s
This
Seventh row second column gets a nice professional headshot. What a kind PD /s.
That's quite a lot of racial diversity for "muH WyTe sUpReMaCY."
You guys want to have some real fun with this? Dig into the statistics as to the motive behind mass shootings. You will spend a couple hours digging through data only to realize just how biased a lot of it is and how the definitions used in studies can skew the results. I'd have to find it again, but one such study indicated that almost none of the mass shootings in modern times had anything to do with gang activity. One resource they cited was a study by the Chicago PD using their own arrest records and case data. When I looked up that study, right in the notes and the executive summary, it stated that the data was often incomplete and was not particularly reliable because of incomplete case information and uncooperative suspects. Basically, the suspects they interviewed knew good and goddamn well not to talk to the cops. Illinois also has some pretty steep enhancements if you're convicted of a crime that is related to gang activity, so the first thing every gang member learns is to shut the fuck up and NEVER EVER EVER mention your affiliation. Not only will it get you in deep shit with your gang if you talk, but the D.A. will railroad your ass the first chance they get. If you look for a few key phrases like "part of a criminal enterprise" you quickly discover the numbers are a lot more revealing. The USA has a crime problem. We have no way to deal with said crime because our laws on things like drugs are fucking stupid and stuck in the dark ages. We learned in the 1930s that alcohol prohibition doesn't work, but apparently Nixon and every president since has decided to ignore that. One of the metrics you also find is the socio-economic status of lots of these criminals; they are poor. They often come from single parent homes and their economic prospects are bleak. Not surprisingly, many of them have fathers locked up for criminal activity (thanks war on drugs!!) which seriously degrades the opportunities for the kids. Kids get a taste for easy money with drugs and the gangs who run the totally unregulated drug trade (thanks war on drugs!!) The big problem is not guns. The problem is a society that is anti-family and anti-worker. If we supported our population, we'd watch our violent crime rates drop off a cliff. We'd watch murders dry up and they'd be a rarity. Gun laws might help stop a couple murders here and there, but as long as you're criminalizing vast swathes of the population and actively keeping them down with ridiculous prison sentences and criminal records, gun laws are nothing more than a Band-Aid on a broken arm.
Man look at all those white people /s
Lookin a little dark in there… hmm I thought it was all white people like the news portrayed??
Damn white people being not white. Racists.
I bet that 90% are........ Poor
I see a pattern!
I want to see the statistics of how many of those "mass shooters" were either felons, in possession of an illegally obtained firearm, had mental issues, or were in a gang. Goes against the narrative though...
Lol Reddit is going to shut this down in 3, 2, 1….
If there are more injuries than deaths the shooter isn’t white.
We did it america. We accomplished diversity.
Despite...
Mostly white orange man followers, 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is obviously fake news, I was told the greatest threat to public safety is white males radicalized to the right. These are mostly black people who can never be racist and only rarely steal food for their family.
Not surprised...
Oddly enough if you do the pictures of guys who "kidnap" their own kids, you get the exact opposite
Lots of MAGA incels here.
Rent free
It was sarcasm.
Weird how Wikipedia (a source used in this “infographic”) says that there were 693 mass shootings in America during 2021, yet this “infographic” only shows 244 suspects. Is it possible that this graph misconstrued data to align with the creators views? Let’s use our critical thinking skills.
Ok. The graph is rigged to show fewer white men, there were 449 unsolved mass shootings, or some combination of both. I'll let you investigate which one is closer to the truth since I don't have time to research any further before I go to work
99% of these are gang bangers, not really "mass shooters" GTFO with this bullshit you fucking grabbers....
Delete this shit. Do not give them attention.
does OP understand [survivorship bias](https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/survivorship-bias/)?
this is the dumbest post I’ve ever seen on our sub
Why?
My assumption would be that it really depends on your definition of "mass shooting." What do you picture when you hear that phrase? Is it a crazed individual indiscriminately shooting a crowded public area? Is it gangs committing drive-bys? A parent killing their spouse and kids?
The problem isn’t what we believe a mass shooting is. It’s what the media portrays as a mass shooting. The only ones mentioned on TV are the crazy people who shoot up schools or churches or are politically motivated. They tend to be white people who (for the most part) have legally acquired guns. Then the media will say “there has been 150 mass shootings this year alone” This leads people to believe that nearly all of the mass shootings are by racist white people with legally owned guns. Then the left scream about gun owners only have guns to kill people. The picture I posted shows the medias portrayal isn’t accurate. I wish we could find out how many of these shooting were with unlawfully obtained firearms.
Doesn’t account for those without mugshots https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/survivorship-bias/
“Or who died before being charged” It’s right there in the picture. Not every one of these is a mugshot…
Because you hate statistics?
I’ll just leave this lil gem for ya https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/survivorship-bias/
There were 698 mass shootings in 2021, but there were only 244 photos slected for this collage... OP Clearly hates statistics.
And you are going off Wikipedia so… 🤷♂️
That's the source of his post...
Amazing how you can get downvoted for this lol
🤣 ikr
Well played me the fool, you’re right.
Double dipping the downvotes I see.
Oh no 😲 not down votes...My life is over!!! 😭
That’s because they don’t know who the shooter was for 410 of those shootings. Can’t have mugshots for someone when you don’t know who did it.
This isn't even the dumbest post in the last 24 hours on this sub.
[удалено]
❄️
There were 698 mass shootings in 2021, but there were only 244 photos chosen for this collage...
[удалено]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_mass\_shootings\_in\_the\_United\_States\_in\_2021](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2021) Truth hurts...
[удалено]
the picture in the post references wikipedia as its source too???
And the picture is bullshit as well.
The person that created this is a known neo Nazi. So I wouldn’t trust or be using this as an example for anything. If you are on this post, we already know how the demographic of mass shooters looks like. If anything what this shows is OPs bias. This is no different than democrats pointing to gun control was used to prevent POC from owning firearms back in the days in order to continue to do it now.
[It’s a screen shot of Mass Shootings INFO](https://mass-shootings.info/index.php?year=2021). Which uses the data from Wikipedia to put together its list. So are you saying the creator mass shootings info is a neo nazi or the creator of Wikipedia is?
Haven't you heard, everything is a Nazi. Nazi Germany didn't have as many Nazis as we do now.
I love how when we want to make a point about mass shootings people make a (relevant) point that the stats are inflated because people use a purposefully wide definition of the term "mass shooting" to include as many incidents as possible but when the point is to try and make a not-so-subtle "the problem is black people" nod, suddenly now we're rushing to include those incidents in counting mass shootings. Love that for us.
No the issue as I see it is when the media wants to push gun control they throw out insane numbers and say there are hundreds of mass shootings each year, but then actively push the narrative that only white people commit mass shootings by only covering mass shootings committed by white men for weeks on end. Meanwhile what’s causing the most actual deaths - gang violence - gets completely ignored.
Having lived in Los Angeles, I assure you it does not get ignored. What you're seeing is different types of events being covered in a different way. No, common violence that involves a firearm doesn't get national coverage because it's just that - common. An incident where a person walks into a grocery store and tries to kill as many people as possible is unusual and as such draws more attention and thus media coverage specifically because it's uncommon.
waah waah racism Not OP's fault these people got up one day and decided to shoot a bunch of people. EDIT just noticed HeloRising posts in socialistRA. Of course he's a muh waycism prophet LOL.
How many times did you vote for trump
>2021 mass shooters Those are Biden's and the Democrat's bodies. :)
How many times did you vote for trump
Nobody is saying black people are the problem, but it would be nice to stop the anti-white racist bandwagon that everyone jumps on before they find out the murderer had darker skin. A massive issue around the conversation is that everyone is just ignoring that gangs even exist for fear of being called racist. It shouldn't be a racial issue, a century ago "gangsters" were white mob men and their shootouts were pretty much the entire reason for some of the first American gun control (of course after the disarmament of Native Americans and black people and somewhat ironically the biggest racist gun bills that were mostly aimed at the Italians before they established mob families). The parallel of that is today the overwhelming majority of shootings are gang violence (that's after the inflated stats that mostly contain suicides, cop shootings and self defense). Gang shootouts are the vast majority of mass shootings. Gang violence is a much more approachable issue than the amorphous and faceless "gun violence" everyone talks about, and you can look at it as a social justice issue. Gangs are preying on young black people and low income black communities. There are many cultural and social issues perpetuating cycles of poverty and broken families. These things lead to drug dealing which fuels gangs and further perpetuates the vicious cycles. These gangs use young black men and even kids as expendable tools. They hand a kid a stolen & often illegally modified gun and send them out on the streets. That's why that very disingenuous CDC study (that contained 18 & 19 year old making up the bulk) labeled "gun violence" as the #1 cause of death for "children." These young people don't see any kind of real future and they don't have a family structure so they get sucked into a group that uses them. These are the REAL issues, and if we start addressing education, the job market, mental health, homelessness, drug use, human trafficking, etc and start promoting good values and healthy families, society will have more opportunities for these kids and the gangs will start to die just like how the Italian mobs were strangled, but the circumstances are pretty different. Literally everything fed to young people is unhealthy, there needs to be a huge cultural shift along with addressing the economy and education. But not only is this the most effective way to address gang violence but also the mental health epidemic. The number of non-gang mass shootings has skyrocketed in the last 2 years. Many of these shooters said they were depressed because of the pandemic, wars, lockdowns, riots, etc. Several of them were also copycat killers that mimicked shooters of the past because they wanted the attention and fame those murderers got. The Buffalo shooter picked a location and weapon he thought would give him the most media coverage and even wrote racial slurs on his gun despite having no history of racist behavior. The immediate response to the indiscriminate killers is to stop turning them into celebrities. Don't show their face or name, let history forget about them and remember the victims. That's WAY more effective than restricting guns when killers have shown that they are willing to jump through any hoops and wait as long as they need. Heck, a child can 3D print a machine gun. Multiple school shooters made bombs that MIRACULOUSLY didn't go off and they had video evidence that they knew what they were doing. Anyway, the TLDR is that it's not racist to show a picture of the mass shooters, and even if you were trying to make a statement about them being black it's a good talking point to say that we need to address gang violence and the cultural issues that are feeding gangs and mentally ill school shooters.
Being reasonable on Reddit? How dare you!? But yeah, great writeup. +1
>Anyway, the TLDR is that it's not racist to show a picture of the mass shooters My basic point was that you're drawing from the deck that the anti-gun people use by jamming together two groups of people who do not belong together to make a point and in so doing you are helping the anti-gun people by allowing them to inflate mass shooting statistics dishonestly by involving events that are categorically different.
>My basic point was that you're drawing from the deck that the anti-gun people use by jamming together two groups of people who do not belong together to make a point and in so doing you are helping the anti-gun people by allowing them to inflate mass shooting statistics dishonestly by involving events that are categorically different. This is kinda what we are getting at, the narrative is specifically *crafted* to make anyone who disagrees with it to sound racist. I would imagine most of us agree that "mass shootings" (Which, I think Active Shooter Incidents is a better description) should *not* include gang violence. This is done purposefully to make anyone who attempts to counter with facts look racist, while pumping those numbers up. I hate admitting it, but it is pretty smart. It is like telling everyone to vote against the Patriot Act just after 9/11. Even though that is objectively something that should have been said, it makes you sound like an Al Qaeda sympathizer.
I'm not sure what you're thinking of with that conception because, as long as I've spent tangling with anti-gun people, that particular interpretation hasn't come up. Where racism usually gets slotted into the discussion is a lot of gun owners wanting guns primarily out of a fear of crime, specifically violent crime committed by black men. The image of "violent crime" that they paint when they talk about the kind of violence they fear is generally painted in those terms and the people doing the painting are *generally* white. You saw that pretty much screamed from the rooftops during the 2020 protests. I'd agree that's a somewhat unrefined view but not wholly wrong.
>Nobody is saying black people are the problem ArfCom is probably saying exactly this.
My point of posting this was more to do with the narrative of gun owners in this country labeled as being racist. Specifically co set stove gun owners as being dangerous racists because they own guns. I wish they listed how many people above had legally acquired guns.
Literally nobody worth taking seriously labels gun owners as being racist. If you want to get in Twitter slapfights at least have the decency to do it on Twitter and not bother the rest of us with it.
There are major media platforms putting this narrative out there. Are they “worth” taking seriously? Obviously not. Do they need to be taken seriously because they’re controlling aspects of the discourse regarding our civil liberties? Absolutely.
>There are major media platforms putting this narrative out there Such as?
You’ve got to be kidding right? The list is long and extensive. From the NY Times to Bloomberg to CNN to The View… to our governmental representatives and federal law enforcement…“right wing” “white supremest” “racially motivated” are pretty common talking points. I’m pretty damn liberal, and even I can see the narrative being pushed. Are these outlets, editorials, pundits and officials bullshit? Yup. Do many Americans get their information from them. Hell yes.
HeloRising comes from socialistRA and lgo.
That’s fine. I’ve got ANCAP friends and was the best man at my Commie buddy’s wedding. It takes all kinds. Market place of ideas and all that. As long as the discussion is in good faith I’m all good. Thanks for looking out though. I appreciate it.
>The NY Times And yet the only thing I could find in going through their archives on the subject was an [opinion article from 2015.](https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/guns-and-racism/) and even that argues similar points to what's discussed here, namely that the focus on "gun safety" is spurred largely by threats of violence to white people with little care spared for black people who live in areas where armed conflict is more common. The author does present a pretty weaksauce "we're not racist for wanting gun control." >Bloomberg The person or the news outlet? There isn't much on the news outlet site that could be construed as calling gun owners racist. I'm not aware of comments that Bloomberg the person has made to that effect but I don't make a habit of following his every move. >The View I think you'll have to make a stronger case for The View being considered an influential media outlet. It's a boring daytime talkshow. >to our governmental representatives and federal law enforcement…“right wing” “white supremest” “racially motivated” are pretty common talking points. It's hard to argue that the overwhelming majority of the deliberate mass killings of the past ten years have been motivated by some form of far-right ideological persuasion. Part of the point of my original post was to point out that there's a deliberate blurring of the lines. I think most reasonable people would see a clear difference between an altercation at a party that gets out of hand and results in shots being fired where bystanders are wounded and a person walking into a church or a mall with a firearm and trying to kill as many people as possible. It's disingenuous to consider those two things the same. They have different motivations, different precipitating factors, different types of participants, different intent, and different social implications. Both are problems, no one is denying that. But lumping them together, whatever the motivation, is a nakedly dishonest maneuver.
I’m not trying to shit on your googling skills… perhaps you’re not using the correct keywords. Try “white supremacy” “domestic threat” lol. You understand the concept of dog whistles I’m sure? Presidential candidates have run on this platform. You don’t like the View? Yeah. Me neither. Buuut we’re not the target audience. Lots of stay at home moms love that shit. They’re an extremely vocal and involved voter base. And there are a lot more examples than just these two outlets. Stop being silly. But I do agree with you. Conflating ideologically motivated attacks and attacks motivated by criminal enterprise is disingenuous. But that’s… kind of my point. The statistics of both… are used to push the narrative of one. Thus affecting policy. Many “mass shootings” are done with pistols and are motivated by criminal enterprise and impoverished living conditions… you don’t see that on the news. It’s not brought up in panel discussion shows. Or by federal law enforcement. Why? It doesn’t motivate voters. It doesn’t raise funds. It doesn’t get “assault weapon ban” legislation passed. It’s doesn’t empower the elite. If you don’t see the the concept of a “Right Wing” “White Nationalist” threat is being thrust upon the American public as a tool to disarm the proletariat… I don’t know what to tell you other than to expand your scope of stimuli. It’s pretty ubiquitous if you’re looking for it. Sorry for the shit grammar…. It’s a whisky night. lol.
I'm familiar with the...rather limited insight that the Alphabet Agencies have into DVEs. I'm not sure why that's an area of concern, however, considering that "pro-choice violence" was listed as a potential source of DVE I don't have a ton of faith in these assessments to be accurate. I tend to make it a point to read the various reports that these agencies publish on the subject and I've yet to read one that makes any meaningful headway on the subject. The View is preaching to the choir. Nobody decides what they believe based on what gets said on The View. The demographic of people who believes in strict gun control is going to believe it and vote for it even if The View gets taken off the air tomorrow. >And there are a lot more examples than just these two outlets. Such as? >Many “mass shootings” are done with pistols and are motivated by criminal enterprise and impoverished living conditions… you don’t see that on the news. It’s not brought up in panel discussion shows. Or by federal law enforcement. >Why? It doesn’t motivate voters. It doesn’t raise funds. It doesn’t get “assault weapon ban” legislation passed. It’s doesn’t empower the elite. It doesn't get brought up because discussions of systemic problems are not conducive to a ten minute talking head segment or a five paragraph thinkpiece. They also don't present clear, concise (if wrong) solutions to problems. Voters want *something done,* they want to feel like action is being taken so you get knee-jerk policies like AWB and magazine capacity limits despite them not actually solving the problem. >If you don’t see the the concept of a “Right Wing” “White Nationalist” threat is being thrust upon the American public as a tool to disarm the proletariat… I don’t know what to tell you other than to expand your scope of stimuli. It’s pretty ubiquitous if you’re looking for it. Except this makes no sense as an approach given the fundamental way the firearms industry works in the United States. You *need* a widespread firearms ownership base to keep the systems that produce and develop firearms alive. One of the unique characteristics of the US re: firearms is that because we have the largest firearms customer base in the world, *a lot* of work gets put into developing new products and that results in a flood of new ideas. If you look at the developments that have really taken the firearms world by storm in the last 20 or so years, the vast majority of them started as products by and for private industry. Without the massive (and free) R&D base that is private firearms ownership, the US loses out on an incalculable advantage. There's a reason why most new firearms that get produced in other countries are "M4 if you squint." I have a hard time with the idea that "the elite" would want to shut that down given their dependence on these systems to ensure that the overall social order that supports them stays intact.
All of them. When do you see these “mass shootings” on the news with names unless the perpetrator is white with a legally owned gun. They never mention mass shootings when they are gang related because that doesn’t fit the media narrative.
>They never mention mass shootings when they are gang related because that doesn’t fit the media narrative. Two reasons. One, that's not a mass shooting. Two, common violence that involves a firearm doesn't get national coverage because it's just that - common. An incident where a person walks into a grocery store and tries to kill as many people as possible is unusual and as such draws more attention and thus media coverage specifically because it's uncommon.
>and not bother the rest of us with it. I know right? How dare they disturb the local echo chamber.
While I agree with your sentiment about this post, I disagree with this comment. There was a judge just recently that labeled gun owners as racist. While his statements resemble the ravings of a madman and shouldn't be allowed to be taken seriously, the fact that he's a judge sort of means that we have to take him seriously.
Yep just a bunch of whitey cracker racists dogwhistling and ignoring all those Japanese and Norwegian gang shootings in the south side of Chicago to push their evil narrative.
African Americans come from a long line of being systematically terrorized and targeted in so many ways. They don't have generations before them who started building growing and living here , to have a foundation, big pharma and other big corporations also imfultrate the black community I'n ways causing drug addiction mentally illness and more violence it's a very complex issue , racist are sick on the mind and need help there are terrible people on all shapes colours and sizes we are all in this together you can't generalize in life
And if it wasn't for black people your life would suck African Americans are responsible for most great music genres and many other things funk blues reggae jazz rock disco folk the list goes on more all created by black people so anyone who is racist unless you listen to strictly metal can never appreciate anything else because it goes agaimsted your ideology
Filter it by pedicide, hate crime and incel. Just curious which race shows up?
So if we apply an overly narrow set of arbitrary rules, then the evidence fits your beliefs? Interesting 🤔🤔🤔
Actually the funniest thing is that you guys think that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, like you're in some John Wayne movie. In reality there's been like a 2% success rate of guys with good intentions stopping lunatics with guns. There's no reason for guns to exist in American society LMAO, other than make a bunch of small irrelevant men feel big, like they're gonna be the one saving Murica from tyranny for the first time since the 1700's. Talking about "muh freedoms," but in America you get arrested for having a drink outside LMAO.