Quote:SAN DIEGO – White men scare me. There, I said it.

Based on my conversations with Latino and African-American friends, I think many of them feel the same way. If they’re walking down a dark street at night and see three white men in their 20s walking toward them, they’re thinking hate crime.

After all, pick up a history book, and look at what white males did to black slaves, American Indians, Chinese immigrants and Mexicans in the occupied Southwest. They’re the original bad hombres.

And so, after the Las Vegas massacre – where a 64-year-old white man named Stephen Paddock carried 23 guns into a hotel suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino and opened fire on an outdoor concert crowd, killing at least 59 people and wounding more than 520 others – it’s fair to ask: “Is it time for authorities to start profiling white males who purchase unusually large amounts of high-powered weapons and ammunition?”

Yes, it is. And why not? There is plenty of evidence that law enforcement officers routinely profile African-Americans, Latinos and Muslim Americans. It’s become part of police work.

In 1999, the New Jersey State Police admitted to pulling over African-American motorists more often than white drivers. In 2010, Arizona lawmakers codified ethnic profiling by requiring local police to determine the legal status of those suspected of being in the country illegally – read: Latinos.

So how did white men get to be so special that, in an era when so many mass shootings are linked to gunmen who fit that profile, it is still considered outrageous to say that this demographic merits extra scrutiny? Talk about white male privilege.

Given the carnage in Las Vegas, a lot of folks – on both the right and the left – are instinctively talking about guns. That’s a circular, highly charged argument that goes nowhere.

What we should be talking about is race. Not the race of the victims, but the race of the shooter.

Authorities insist that Paddock – who was reportedly wealthy, liked to gamble and had no known political or religious affiliations – fits none of the established profiles.

But actually, Paddock does fit one. He’s a white male, and most serial killers and mass murderers are white males.

For the sake of public relations, and because – in the era of “If you see something, say something” – law enforcement doesn’t want the public discounting anyone who might look suspicious just because of skin color, the FBI claims that it’s a myth to suggest that “serial killers are all white males.” The agency insists that serial killers span all racial groups.

Sure. But note that I said “most,” not “all.” The majority of mass murderers are white men. The fact that we might be able to find the occasional serial killer who is a woman of color does not significantly change the pie chart.

Besides, the FBI would be more convincing if it practiced what it preached.

In 2002, federal agents were frantically searching for the so-called Beltway Sniper, who killed 10 people and wounded three more in the Washington metropolitan area. Authorities got off to a slow start because, according to the profile, serial killers are usually white men. Retired FBI profilers went on broadcast media and said, as one put it at the time, “This is something white males do.”

The shooters, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, were African-American.

Like many Latinos, when I hear about a tragedy like the one in Las Vegas, I hold my breath and hope the culprit wasn’t one of ours. My African-American and Muslim American friends do the same. I’ve even heard a religious conservative call into a radio show and say he does it, too. It’s human nature.

Still, I have to wonder if white men go through that exercise. I don’t think so. That must be yet another ancillary benefit to being a white male.

Well, the free pass has expired. It’s time for law enforcement authorities to keep track of white men who stockpile guns.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1073497/why-d...-guns.html

They are going to need to hire a lot more agents.

I feel offended by the article stating that white males should be profiled.

I was thinking this through. I would guess there are what, 15 to 20 million white men who "stockpile" guns? Is that a fair estimate folks? I think so, but let's say it's only 10 million.

10 million guys. We can watch them all like hawks. Then we'll be able to stop that one whacko every couple of years that starts shooting.

Three guys in shifts to watch each guy. That's 30 million good paying government jobs.

Not only would we all be safer, we'd get an economic stimulus as well.

(10-05-2017 05:23 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:SAN DIEGO – White men scare me. There, I said it.

Based on my conversations with Latino and African-American friends, I think many of them feel the same way. If they’re walking down a dark street at night and see three white men in their 20s walking toward them, they’re thinking hate crime.

After all, pick up a history book, and look at what white males did to black slaves, American Indians, Chinese immigrants and Mexicans in the occupied Southwest. They’re the original bad hombres.

And so, after the Las Vegas massacre – where a 64-year-old white man named Stephen Paddock carried 23 guns into a hotel suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino and opened fire on an outdoor concert crowd, killing at least 59 people and wounding more than 520 others – it’s fair to ask: “Is it time for authorities to start profiling white males who purchase unusually large amounts of high-powered weapons and ammunition?”

Yes, it is. And why not? There is plenty of evidence that law enforcement officers routinely profile African-Americans, Latinos and Muslim Americans. It’s become part of police work.

In 1999, the New Jersey State Police admitted to pulling over African-American motorists more often than white drivers. In 2010, Arizona lawmakers codified ethnic profiling by requiring local police to determine the legal status of those suspected of being in the country illegally – read: Latinos.

So how did white men get to be so special that, in an era when so many mass shootings are linked to gunmen who fit that profile, it is still considered outrageous to say that this demographic merits extra scrutiny? Talk about white male privilege.

Given the carnage in Las Vegas, a lot of folks – on both the right and the left – are instinctively talking about guns. That’s a circular, highly charged argument that goes nowhere.

What we should be talking about is race. Not the race of the victims, but the race of the shooter.

Authorities insist that Paddock – who was reportedly wealthy, liked to gamble and had no known political or religious affiliations – fits none of the established profiles.

But actually, Paddock does fit one. He’s a white male, and most serial killers and mass murderers are white males.

For the sake of public relations, and because – in the era of “If you see something, say something” – law enforcement doesn’t want the public discounting anyone who might look suspicious just because of skin color, the FBI claims that it’s a myth to suggest that “serial killers are all white males.” The agency insists that serial killers span all racial groups.

Sure. But note that I said “most,” not “all.” The majority of mass murderers are white men. The fact that we might be able to find the occasional serial killer who is a woman of color does not significantly change the pie chart.

Besides, the FBI would be more convincing if it practiced what it preached.

In 2002, federal agents were frantically searching for the so-called Beltway Sniper, who killed 10 people and wounded three more in the Washington metropolitan area. Authorities got off to a slow start because, according to the profile, serial killers are usually white men. Retired FBI profilers went on broadcast media and said, as one put it at the time, “This is something white males do.”

The shooters, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, were African-American.

Like many Latinos, when I hear about a tragedy like the one in Las Vegas, I hold my breath and hope the culprit wasn’t one of ours. My African-American and Muslim American friends do the same. I’ve even heard a religious conservative call into a radio show and say he does it, too. It’s human nature.

Still, I have to wonder if white men go through that exercise. I don’t think so. That must be yet another ancillary benefit to being a white male.

Well, the free pass has expired. It’s time for law enforcement authorities to keep track of white men who stockpile guns.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1073497/why-d...-guns.html

Sure we can profile them once we stop and frisk all young black males and demand all Latinos present their papers. /sarc

I'm kneeling the next time I hear the anthem.

Well, why should someone buy 30 guns in a year? Maybe the gun shops could form a communication between to let others know who bought a gun and what types they bought. Then, if a red flag comes up? They could call the feds on that person. If that was in place before Las Vegas? We might have avoided this.

(10-05-2017 07:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Well, why should someone buy 30 guns in a year? Maybe the gun shops could form a communication between to let others know who bought a gun and what types they bought. Then, if a red flag comes up? They could call the feds on that person. If that was in place before Las Vegas? We might have avoided this.

lol wut

You're not going to spy, track, and criminalize the 99.99% of us who are responsible gun owners, you weirdo.

(10-05-2017 06:08 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I'm kneeling the next time I hear the anthem.

Just like i thought, they would get butthurt.

Well, what's the definition of "stockpile guns"? I tend to agree that this guy buying in the neighborhood of 30 in a month is a bit excessive.

(10-05-2017 08:38 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Well, what's the definition of "stockpile guns"? I tend to agree that this guy buying in the neighborhood of 30 in a month is a bit excessive.

there's nothing wrong with setting up guidelines in reporting as long as common sense is applied (and that's never easy when developing legislation these days)

regardless, when a motherfocker finally goes batshite crazy????.....it won't matter what law(s) is in place....

(10-05-2017 05:34 PM)Claw Wrote:  They are going to need to hire a lot more agents.

Lol.

(10-05-2017 07:48 PM)Kronke Wrote:  You're not going to spy, track, and criminalize the 99.99% of us who are responsible gun owners, you weirdo.

Lol

(10-05-2017 08:38 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Well, what's the definition of "stockpile guns"? I tend to agree that this guy buying in the neighborhood of 30 in a month is a bit excessive.

He could probably have caused as much damage with 2-3 guns. I went to the farm today and fired off about 200 rounds of .223 on semi-auto, because I couldn't get the bump stock to work as advertised, hitting within very close proximity of where I aimed almost every time, and it took me like 3-4 minutes. And I wasn't even shooting and reloading all that fast.

(10-05-2017 09:11 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 08:38 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Well, what's the definition of "stockpile guns"? I tend to agree that this guy buying in the neighborhood of 30 in a month is a bit excessive.

He could probably have caused as much damage with 2-3 guns. I went to the farm today and fired off about 200 rounds of .223 on semi-auto, because I couldn't get the bump stock to work as advertised, hitting within very close proximity of where I aimed almost every time, and it took me like 3-4 minutes. And I wasn't even shooting and reloading all that fast.

I had to work today.....I'm jealous

how many trips up to his room did this guy take?

(10-05-2017 10:13 PM)Lush Wrote:  how many trips up to his room did this guy take?

Something they should be able to give us an exact answer to, given the number of CCTV cameras in Vegas. Perhaps we haven't been told yet, because something's not adding up.

Add to the watch list.

I think the stat I heard the other day is 3 percent of the country owns 50 percent of the guns (and just 28 percent of Americans own a gun).