Not what some of us expected...


51% OF MASS SHOOTERS IN 2019 WERE BLACK: ONLY 29% WERE WHITE

again, depends on how you define 'mass'. I'd be fine with almost any definition, as long as we stick to it so that we can address it.

(08-06-2019 01:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Not what some of us expected...


51% OF MASS SHOOTERS IN 2019 WERE BLACK: ONLY 29% WERE WHITE

FYI - You are a racist for posting that......

(08-06-2019 02:43 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 01:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Not what some of us expected...


51% OF MASS SHOOTERS IN 2019 WERE BLACK: ONLY 29% WERE WHITE

FYI - You are a racist for posting that......

Well, of course I am. :D


But, in my defense, since that term has been thrown around so much by the radleft (primarily because they have no logical arguments to make) it's comparable to crying wolf.

(08-06-2019 02:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  again, depends on how you define 'mass'. I'd be fine with almost any definition, as long as we stick to it so that we can address it.

Pretty sure it was the zerO admin that redefined "Mass shooting" in the hopes they could stoke enough fear to circumvent our 2nd Amendment rights. You know, that pesky Constitution and all.

Any shooting is a Mass shooting if it involves either 4 or more victims, casualties or fatalities. Not sure which it is, and not looking, or it could be a combination therein.

So, every time some gangbanger opens up on a drive-by or in a "party", there's a pretty good chance of a mass shooting.

Used to be reserved for the crazy white Mofo's, but we can't even have that anymore.

It's why we can't have nice things

There will be a forthcoming new definition of a mass shooter. Neighborhood disagreements and work place disputes will not be included lol.

(08-06-2019 02:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  again, depends on how you define 'mass'. I'd be fine with almost any definition, as long as we stick to it so that we can address it.

That's been declared by the FBI for over 15 years

Quote:In the 1980s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defined mass murderer as someone who “kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location” (Krouse and Richardson, 2015).

I'd love to know the numbers if you use the 'LOWER" standards:

Mother Jones -Three fatal injuries (excluding shooter)*
Gun Violence Archive - Four fatal or nonfatal injuries (incl. shooter)
Mass Shooting Tracker - Four fatal or nonfatal injuries (incl. shooter)
Mass Shootings in America database - Three fatal or nonfatal injuries (excluding shooter)

So take your pick... 3 or 4 and fatal/non-fatal.

I dont like the catch all mass shooting definition. Gang bangers that shoot and kill each other are different, in my view, than someone that walks into a public place and shoots at people indiscriminately.

Their motivations are entirely different and the way those at risk must be profiled is likewise entirely different.

(08-06-2019 04:41 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  again, depends on how you define 'mass'. I'd be fine with almost any definition, as long as we stick to it so that we can address it.

That's been declared by the FBI for over 15 years

Quote:In the 1980s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defined mass murderer as someone who “kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location” (Krouse and Richardson, 2015).

I'd love to know the numbers if you use the 'LOWER" standards:

Mother Jones -Three fatal injuries (excluding shooter)*
Gun Violence Archive - Four fatal or nonfatal injuries (incl. shooter)
Mass Shooting Tracker - Four fatal or nonfatal injuries (incl. shooter)
Mass Shootings in America database - Three fatal or nonfatal injuries (excluding shooter)

So take your pick... 3 or 4 and fatal/non-fatal.

I could have sworn some other measurable or qualifier was added in the last admin to open the definition up further.

But, Hey! Could well be wrong, too.

Well, they are now gonna treat the KKK and other groups as a terrorist group and treat them like ISIS. The Dayton shooter is an Antifa supporter. It is now time to classify them as a terror group.

I've never looked at this issue through a racial lens, but given the narrative of the past few days, it seems as if we are being lied to.

(08-06-2019 04:52 PM)Niner National Wrote:  I dont like the catch all mass shooting definition. Gang bangers that shoot and kill each other are different, in my view, than someone that walks into a public place and shoots at people indiscriminately.

Their motivations are entirely different and the way those at risk must be profiled is likewise entirely different.

What about gang bangers who indiscriminately go shoot up another gangs neighborhood and maybe get 1 or 2 of the other sides gang bangers?

What would you call workplace violence? Going postal? They know those people and its not like Las Vegas.

(08-06-2019 01:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Not what some of us expected...


51% OF MASS SHOOTERS IN 2019 WERE BLACK: ONLY 29% WERE WHITE

While the source periodical had right leanings (and potential bias), the article itself underscores what most who are dispassionate about the situation already know--the media chooses a posterboy for shootings.

Geez, there was one shooting in May in which three gays/trans were shot and killed BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCE and the first I heard of it was by reading this article.

It turns out the shooter was an 18 year old black male. I have no doubt the reason that story never hit mainstream was due to that fact.

(08-06-2019 04:52 PM)Niner National Wrote:  I dont like the catch all mass shooting definition. Gang bangers that shoot and kill each other are different, in my view, than someone that walks into a public place and shoots at people indiscriminately.

Their motivations are entirely different and the way those at risk must be profiled is likewise entirely different.

I agree completely.

But we also know that gang bangers account for far more homicides over the course of a year than the "radicalized white guy" shootings.

Point is, if the powers that be really wanted to address the alarming number of homicides they should start there.

But if their point is to demonize one specific group in an effort to get all other groups on board in an attempt to severely restrict access to weapons for the bulk of the population, then they'll do exactly what they're doing.

(08-08-2019 08:57 AM)Kronke Wrote:  I've never looked at this issue through a racial lens, but given the narrative of the past few days, it seems as if we are being lied to.

The school shooters tend to be young and white. The other public mass are all kinds of everything, including blacks and lots of immigrants and first generation born...some younger some older.

(08-08-2019 09:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 04:52 PM)Niner National Wrote:  I dont like the catch all mass shooting definition. Gang bangers that shoot and kill each other are different, in my view, than someone that walks into a public place and shoots at people indiscriminately.

Their motivations are entirely different and the way those at risk must be profiled is likewise entirely different.

What about gang bangers who indiscriminately go shoot up another gangs neighborhood and maybe get 1 or 2 of the other sides gang bangers?

What they usually get are old women watching TV and children playing in their bedrooms when the spray of bullets penetrate cheap siding and kill innocent people. What they frequently miss are the other gang bangers.

As to David St.'s comment, David Antifa became a terrorist organization the minute they covered their faces and assaulted their first citizen. It's conveniently dense of the left not to have realized this before they killed someone. They cracked an elderly man in the head with a pipe in Portland. They were damned lucky he didn't die of a stroke.

(08-08-2019 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2019 09:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 04:52 PM)Niner National Wrote:  I dont like the catch all mass shooting definition. Gang bangers that shoot and kill each other are different, in my view, than someone that walks into a public place and shoots at people indiscriminately.

Their motivations are entirely different and the way those at risk must be profiled is likewise entirely different.

What about gang bangers who indiscriminately go shoot up another gangs neighborhood and maybe get 1 or 2 of the other sides gang bangers?

What they usually get are old women watching TV and children playing in their bedrooms when the spray of bullets penetrate cheap siding and kill innocent people. What they frequently miss are the other gang bangers.

As to David St.'s comment, David Antifa became a terrorist organization the minute they covered their faces and assaulted their first citizen. It's conveniently dense of the left not to have realized this before they killed someone. They cracked an elderly man in the head with a pipe in Portland. They were damned lucky he didn't die of a stroke.

sigh, remember when the left used to say stuff like 'war is not the answer' and 'give peace a chance'?
Today, not so much. Thanks, antifa.

(08-06-2019 04:52 PM)Niner National Wrote:  I dont like the catch all mass shooting definition. Gang bangers that shoot and kill each other are different, in my view, than someone that walks into a public place and shoots at people indiscriminately.

Their motivations are entirely different and the way those at risk must be profiled is likewise entirely different.

Oh cool. So in that case it's NOT the gun's fault but the person pulling the trigger and their way of life/choices?

Thanks for clearing that one up.

(08-08-2019 01:36 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 04:52 PM)Niner National Wrote:  I dont like the catch all mass shooting definition. Gang bangers that shoot and kill each other are different, in my view, than someone that walks into a public place and shoots at people indiscriminately.

Their motivations are entirely different and the way those at risk must be profiled is likewise entirely different.

Oh cool. So in that case it's NOT the gun's fault but the person pulling the trigger and their way of life/choices?

Thanks for clearing that one up.

When have i ever said shootings are the guns fault?