why are so many blacks mass shooters
- Thread starter Bulletbob
- Start date
white americans make up 69 percent of the population and commit 64 percent of mass shooting ,black Americans make up 13 percent of the population yet commit 21 percent of the mass shooting old bastard what do those numbers tell you.
You spend so much time with the insults, you don't leave enough energy or neurons to be diligent examining what is presented to you and developing your argument above the intellect of a three year old's temper tantrum. The few words that you pound out that have some semblance to the topic are not only wrong, they are just stupid because it proves you don't read or can't understand what is presented to you.
I don't know why but I'll again treat you like a person capable of reason and explain myself again . . . .
My argument has been focused on the terminology and how the use of "mass shooting" allows mischief to be made because the term exists without actual definition in the USA.
You said to me, "In the US a "mass shooting" is described/defined as 4 or more killed/wounded"; in reply, I said, "Except when it isn't, which is my point."
The USAToday article uses the term "mass shooting" interchangeably referencing public shooting incidents in Australia and the USA.
This is done to celebrate Australia's "success" in lowering the incidence of their "mass shootings" to highlight and differentiate the USA's condition and the high incidence of our "mass shootings". . . This is disingenuously done with a singular purpose, to argue for strict gun control to be enacted in the USA.
Thing is, we know in the USA, a "mass shooting" is [usually] defined as four or more shot (but not necessarily killed) while Australia's definition is an incident (as the article states), "in which five or more people are killed".
What happens is the strange situation where the DEMedia histrionically "reports" that the USA has had 130+ "mass shootings" so far in 2021 but if one does the work and clicks through the graph, 7 incidents meet the Australia definition.
We also get into sticky situations where "statistics" are thrown out like blackascoal did in post 19 in this thread, trying to prove that whites make up the majority of "mass shooters" by saying "Between 1982 and April 2001[sic], 66 out of the 123 mass shootings in the United States were carried out by white shooters."
What criteria Statista is using is not shared, but it sure isn't the 4 or more people shot that most DEMedia and anti-gun political entities are using (Gun Violence Archive).
For the 123 incidents over 39 years, that blackascoal posted, maybe it is correct, most of the 123 were done by whites . . . But for the 130+ so far this year, using the "4 or more shot" criteria, that statement is wrong, most are done by POC's.
That is the purposeful bullshit I'm talking about, that frustrates real discussion and problem solving by design.
.
Old Trapper
Verified User
If you were not such a dumb f**k trying to impress others with your "intelligence" you would actually read the article you are using as a source. The writer does not use the definitions interchangeably as you ignorantly suggest. What he is speaking of is the response by the legislators to what they call a "mass shooting". Perhaps your "enlightened intelligence" needs to be just a little more informed with such articles as this: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/03/2...y-not-far-off-from-the-population-as-a-whole/ One can then gain an understanding that the majority of mass murders are not committed by Blacks just as the majority of the population is not Black.
Then too, to racists like you, and others on the right, that would not make a difference.
the fact is black mass killers from a percentage of the population number more Guano prefers you don't know the truth . mass shooters are simply usually terrorist , racial haters, criminals and mentally ill and come in all colors and religion and political backgrounds just as serial killers
No matter how you repackage it, the USAToday article is advocating for Aussie style gun control to be implemented in the USA because of Aussie "success" in reducing their "mass shootings" . . . Thing is, the USA has a different definition of "mass shooting".
Nothing new there, those stats have already been covered / criticized by me and actually, the article agrees with me and confirms my analysis. The article you linked by Volokh has him confirm my position:
"And of course much depends on the definition of mass shootings; Mother Jones appears to define it as "a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed." If that is broadened, for instance to shootings with fewer fatalities, the numbers might change (likely with the black percentages increasing, to reflect the higher homicide rates among blacks more generally)."
That means that once you widen the criteria of "mass shooting" from 4 killed to 4 injured, you "broaden" the data-set up to a shit-ton of Black criminals and the destruction of a narrative.
.
Last edited:
And now you do a flip-a-roo-change-a-roo, why did you employ the term "mass murders" there?
Hilarious . . . You are trying to prove me wrong about the use of sloppy terminology by proving me right?
Let's review the different criterion's used because you just seem too stupid to catch-on:
With Gun Violence Archive (GVA) and most media in the USA, their description of "mass shooting" allows maximum shock impact with its low threshold of an event with 4 people shot (not necessarily killed). This is such a wide criteria that it results in hundreds of "mass shootings" counted in a year with the count standing at 165 at the time of this post. Most of those shootings are done by Black criminals just doing Black criminal shit, shooting Blacks in Black communities . . .
Now you bring in a another one, a very narrow one, Mother Jones (by way of Volokh) which shows only 124 "mass shootings" over 39 years. Mother Jones describes "mass shooting" as an event with 4 people KILLED, which are actually "mass murder" events (as your Freudian slip acknowledges). The way Mother Jones counts is interesting and I have posted a full quote of their criteria below.
Interestingly, Mother Jones seems to be the criteria employed in the Statista article which is what blackascoal tried to refer to in his post, #19 (he got the dates wrong, it's April of 2021):
What a dilemma!
Here's the Mother Jones explanation of its definition of "mass shooting" and why they include and exclude certain things. Actually I prefer this approach as it does focus on the type of event that most people think of when considering "mass shootings" which are public indiscriminate rampages, not drug corner beefs between gangs.
That Mother Jones excludes events that no perpetrator has been identified is questionable. They do recognize outfits like Gun Violence Archive, with their loose criteria, may not have a singular focus on true "mass shootings" which aligns with my criticism (for different reasons):
"Our research focused on indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker. We exclude shootings stemming from more conventionally motivated crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence. (Or in which the perpetrators have not been identified.) Other news outlets and researchers have since published larger tallies that include a wide range of gun crimes in which four or more people have been either wounded or killed. While those larger datasets of multiple-victim shootings are useful for studying the broader problem of gun violence, our investigation provides an in-depth look at a distinct phenomenon—from the firearms used and mental health factors to the growing copycat problem. Tracking mass shootings is complex; we believe ours is the most useful approach for studying this specific phenomenon."
No, it does make a difference to me, that has been what I've been saying..
My point, AGAIN is that the term "mass shooting" is a fluid, imprecise term allowing all manner of misrepresentation and mischief by he left, intended to deceive regular people not familiar with the particulars.
If we follow the definition of Mother Jones / Statista (which is actually of "mass murder", 4 or more KILLED) you are correct, the breakdown pretty much follows the racial breakdown of the nation with White murderers being in the lead numerically.
However, if we go with the GVA definition of 4 or more injured, which is the darling of the DEMedia and politicians, embraced because it is so hyperbolic that it makes the gun control agenda easier to advance -- Blacks lead far and away.
So it does make a difference; I would prefer to use Mother Jones data-set because it more truthfully shows the problem of random indiscriminate shootings and that honesty could lead to solutions.
I don't give a shit about the racial breakdown other than correcting leftist misrepresentations. I'm willing, even eager to dismiss and abandon the GVA data-set that shows Blacks lead "mass shootings" . . . Are you willing to dismiss and abandon the GVA data-set which shows hundreds of "mass shootings" a year and lose some ability to scare and deceive the general public?
The choice of which data-set to use is entirely the left's; as long as the DEMedia is driving the agenda we know which one will be pushed -- the one that pushes the dishonest narrative!
.
Old Trapper
Verified User
Your continued ignorance is truly amazing even though it is not surprising. The "definition" of mass killing has NOTHING to do with the success of the legislation. Live with it dumb f**k.
Then too, in your haste to show just how stupid you are you choose to ignore this part of the Volokh cvomment:
Still, the bottom line seems clear: Non-Hispanic whites don't seem to commit mass shootings at greater than their share of the population. The groups that appear overrepresented are blacks and Asians, but the gaps there are fairly small and may be skewed by just a handful of shootings (given that the denominator is 121, 8 of which were by Asians and 21 by blacks). Of course, I'm not the first to note this; see, e.g., this 2017 Slate article (Daniel Engber), also based on the Mother Jones data."
Live with it fool. You are just another racist white hate monger trying to justify your hate.
51% of Mass Shooters in 2019 Were Black: Only 29% Were White
60 people were shot in Chicago over the weekend. 24 of those people were shot in four hours.
Baltimore reached its 200th murder victim of the year during its “Ceasefire Weekend”.
4 people were killed in 4 days in Kansas City. 6 men were shot in Philly during the filming of a rap video.
Even in Toronto, 15 people were wounded in shootings over the weekend. Over 350 people have been shot this year in the Canadian city which has gun control, no NRA, and none of the usual excuses.
This tide of violence has received less media coverage because it challenges the false claim that, as a CNN op-ed once put it, mass shootings are a “white man’s problem.”
"I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country," Ilhan Omar claimed on Al Jazeera.
"We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men," Don Lemon had previously claimed on CNN.
"White Men Have Committed More Mass Shootings Than Any Other Group," Newsweek had argued.
The perception that mass shootings are a “white man’s problem” lingers around the country because white mass shooters tend to get more publicity.
Looking at the data from the Mass Shooting Tracker, widely utilized by the media, as of this writing, of the 72 mass shooters, perpetrators in shootings that killed or wounded 4 or more people, whose race is known, 21 were white, 37 were black, 8 were Latino, and 6 were members of other groups.
51% of mass shooters in 2019 were black, 29% were white, and 11% were Latino.
Three mass shooters were Asian, two were American Indian and one was Arab.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/08/51-mass-shooters-2019-were-black-only-29-were-daniel-greenfield/
60 people were shot in Chicago over the weekend. 24 of those people were shot in four hours.
Baltimore reached its 200th murder victim of the year during its “Ceasefire Weekend”.
4 people were killed in 4 days in Kansas City. 6 men were shot in Philly during the filming of a rap video.
Even in Toronto, 15 people were wounded in shootings over the weekend. Over 350 people have been shot this year in the Canadian city which has gun control, no NRA, and none of the usual excuses.
This tide of violence has received less media coverage because it challenges the false claim that, as a CNN op-ed once put it, mass shootings are a “white man’s problem.”
"I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country," Ilhan Omar claimed on Al Jazeera.
"We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men," Don Lemon had previously claimed on CNN.
"White Men Have Committed More Mass Shootings Than Any Other Group," Newsweek had argued.
The perception that mass shootings are a “white man’s problem” lingers around the country because white mass shooters tend to get more publicity.
Looking at the data from the Mass Shooting Tracker, widely utilized by the media, as of this writing, of the 72 mass shooters, perpetrators in shootings that killed or wounded 4 or more people, whose race is known, 21 were white, 37 were black, 8 were Latino, and 6 were members of other groups.
51% of mass shooters in 2019 were black, 29% were white, and 11% were Latino.
Three mass shooters were Asian, two were American Indian and one was Arab.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/08/51-mass-shooters-2019-were-black-only-29-were-daniel-greenfield/
Of course it does, had the Aussies set their definition at 8 dead, their perfect successful run for the 1996 law would still be intact.
As the USAToday article says, the successful run for the "5 killed" definition was broken when, "in May 2018, a family of seven including four children was found dead with gunshot wounds at a rural property in southwest Australia. It was the country's worst mass shooting since 1996."
Ignore? I didn't draw any conclusions or challenge the Statista / Mother Jones racial breakdown itself, my challenge was that it was being used to make a racial breakdown conclusion as a rebuttal (by blackascoal) to the OP's claims of the racial breakdown of Mass Shooting Tracker's 2019 numbers.
While you were spouting off, THIS HAPPENED:
"Authorities say a total of five people were shot and that all victims were female. One woman, identified by family members as 30-year-old Sharnez Hill, was killed on the scene.
Richmond Police Chief Gerald Smith announced during a press conference Wednesday that the 3-month-old later died of her injuries at a hospital. . . . The other three victims - a 29-year-old, a 15-year-old, and an 11-year-old - are in stable condition.
Richmond Police Chief Gerald Smith announced during a press conference Wednesday that the 3-month-old later died of her injuries at a hospital. . . . The other three victims - a 29-year-old, a 15-year-old, and an 11-year-old - are in stable condition.
Last edited:
Of course it does, had the Aussies set their definition at 8 dead, their perfect successful run for the 1996 law would still be intact.
As the USAToday article says, the successful run for the "5 killed" definition was broken when, "in May 2018, a family of seven including four children was found dead with gunshot wounds at a rural property in southwest Australia. It was the country's worst mass shooting since 1996."
Ignore? I didn't draw any conclusions or challenge the Statista / Mother Jones racial breakdown itself, my challenge was that it was being used to make a racial breakdown conclusion as a rebuttal (by blackascoal) to the OP's claims of the racial breakdown of Mass Shooting Tracker's 2019 numbers.
While you were spouting off, THIS HAPPENED:
"Authorities say a total of five people were shot and that all victims were female. One woman, identified by family members as 30-year-old Sharnez Hill, was killed on the scene.
Richmond Police Chief Gerald Smith announced during a press conference Wednesday that the 3-month-old later died of her injuries at a hospital. . . . The other three victims - a 29-year-old, a 15-year-old, and an 11-year-old - are in stable condition.
.
democrats always claim we believe in science , but when faced with stats that show different then their claims they cant handle the truth
51% of Mass Shooters in 2019 Were Black: Only 29% Were White
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/20...19-were-black-only-29-were-daniel-greenfield/
You really could have stopped at the bolded part...
Of course it does, had the Aussies set their definition at 8 dead, their perfect successful run for the 1996 law would still be intact.
As the USAToday article says, the successful run for the "5 killed" definition was broken when, "in May 2018, a family of seven including four children was found dead with gunshot wounds at a rural property in southwest Australia. It was the country's worst mass shooting since 1996."
Ignore? I didn't draw any conclusions or challenge the Statista / Mother Jones racial breakdown itself, my challenge was that it was being used to make a racial breakdown conclusion as a rebuttal (by blackascoal) to the OP's claims of the racial breakdown of Mass Shooting Tracker's 2019 numbers.
While you were spouting off, THIS HAPPENED:
"Authorities say a total of five people were shot and that all victims were female. One woman, identified by family members as 30-year-old Sharnez Hill, was killed on the scene.
Richmond Police Chief Gerald Smith announced during a press conference Wednesday that the 3-month-old later died of her injuries at a hospital. . . . The other three victims - a 29-year-old, a 15-year-old, and an 11-year-old - are in stable condition.
.
That Richmond shooting happened because statues!
TUR THEM DOWN!!!
Yes but I have chosen not to , and no one can do anything about it.
Well guano the fact is there are a lot of bpack mass shooters.thats mainly due to involvement in drugs and gangs as the slaughter eachother and any innocents that get in the way. You can either be a real black man and adress the problem or you can be the medias and democrats bitch and pretend the problem goes away . it wont.
44 shooting in Chicago last weekend .
A real black man would talk about the issue and offer some advice .
Instead you clam up and attack me . really shows how much you really care about the black community guano.
You dont care you only care about politics and your own racist hate