Today's Mass Shooting

[ahhell]

White mass shooters are more likely to commit their crimes in public places, which is likely a reason why mass shootings by whites get more coverage.

The situation you described is one in which both whites and Blacks complain about racism: whites complain because there is more coverage of white mass killers and Blacks complain because there is less coverage when the victims are Black.

IS there any evidence that white shooters are more likely to occur in public places? I haven't seen any. They do seem more likely to do their violence in public places where other white people might be though.

https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/who-are-mass-shooters-mass-shooter-demographics-part-2/

 

[Thermal]

White mass shooters are more likely to commit their crimes in public places, which is likely a reason why mass shootings by whites get more coverage.

The situation you described is one in which both whites and Blacks complain about racism: whites complain because there is more coverage of white mass killers and Blacks complain because there is less coverage when the victims are Black.

No, more black killings are not on their own private ******* property. That's just not true. Public street shootings are the most common. But as you say, Mr and Mrs Cracker aren't on "those" streets, but they go grocery shopping, so "it can happen to a white guy" is the topic; it happens to black people every ******* day at dramatically higher incidence on public streets is not worth talking about.

Guns. On the street. In the hands. Of willing killers. Is. The. Problem.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No, more black killings are not on their own private ******* property. That's just not true. Public street shootings are the most common. But as you say, Mr and Mrs Cracker aren't on "those" streets, but they go grocery shopping, so "it can happen to a white guy" is the topic; it happens to black people every ******* day at dramatically higher incidence on public streets is not worth talking about.

Guns. On the street. In the hands. Of willing killers. Is. The. Problem.

Sure, endemic crime is not something that should be ignored.

I trust you can understand that people going "but Chicago" in response to every story about a mass shooter (especially if they are white) has no purpose but beyond distracting from the unique problem of rampage shootings.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the record:


Wikipedia

So John Doe goes to the park and shoots his girlfriend and her parents is considered a mass shooting?

Or he kills his girlfriend and 3 people with her whom he does not know?

Or it's a drive by and 3 bystanders are shot?

Do you see the problem lumping that together with the guy that sets out to shoot a bunch of strangers at the grocery store?

They are obviously all important and should be addressed. But they are also qualitatively different for many reasons.

 

[Kestrel]

The real issue is that once more a ******* nut case bought a ******* assault weapon and used to to kill random people. This isn't doubt race, creed, religion or poverty. It is about the easy access to guns in American society and more specifically guns that are optimized for homicide.

Is pandering to the needs of the militia movement really worth the price we pay?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The real issue is that once more a ******* nut case bought a ******* assault weapon and used to to kill random people. This isn't doubt race, creed, religion or poverty. It is about the easy access to guns in American society and more specifically guns that are optimized for homicide.

Is pandering to the needs of the militia movement really worth the price we pay?

Except for the mass shootings that don't use assault weapons. The virginia tech shooting was done with two ordinary semi-auto pistols. One was even a .22.

Assault weapon bans are pretty much worthless, especially when written with grandfather clauses that mean existing weapons remain in circulation indefinitely. For example, pre-ban rifles are still available in Mass some 30 years after the ban was put into place in '93, at only a somewhat inflated price point.

Nibbling around the edge of the turd sandwich is no way to solve the problem, even if you believe top-down prohibition is a viable solution.

Outright banning and mandatory confiscation of all semi-auto (hell, all repeating) firearms is probably the step needed to even approach something that will even have an impact, and I very much doubt our current political class has the stomach for that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

On May 31, 2019, a building engineer killed 12 people in or near the Virginia Beach municipal building. The engineer was not white.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Virginia_Beach_shooting

OK that's one.

Workplace shootings count though there are a few differences. They should be counted.

So there are the two snipers and Mr DeWayne. I already mentioned the VA Tech shooter who was Asian.

 

[Bogative]

You seem to have forgotten poverty.

Coahoma County, Mississippi – 34% poverty rate.

Phillips County, Arkansas – 33% poverty rate.

Macon County, Alabama – 26% poverty rate.

Washington County, Mississippi – 34% poverty rate.

Dallas County, Alabama – 32% poverty rate.

Compared to the five cities and counties on the list with population density between 1400 per square mile and nearly 10,000 per square mile.

New Orleans Parish, Louisiana – 25% poverty rate.

St. Louis, Missouri – 25% poverty rate.

Baltimore, Maryland – 22% poverty rate.

Petersburg City, Virginia –28% poverty rate.

District of Columbia –14% poverty rate.


As you can see, the counties with 70 people per square mile or less have similar crime rates as areas that have a have much higher population density. Now that "poverty + population density" can't be used, it's time to move on to the next excuse.

 

[smartcooky]

Coahoma County, Mississippi – 34% poverty rate.

Phillips County, Arkansas – 33% poverty rate.

Macon County, Alabama – 26% poverty rate.

Washington County, Mississippi – 34% poverty rate.

Dallas County, Alabama – 32% poverty rate.

Compared to the five cities and counties on the list with population density between 1400 per square mile and nearly 10,000 per square mile.

New Orleans Parish, Louisiana – 25% poverty rate.

St. Louis, Missouri – 25% poverty rate.

Baltimore, Maryland – 22% poverty rate.

Petersburg City, Virginia –28% poverty rate.

District of Columbia –14% poverty rate.


As you can see, the counties with 70 people per square mile or less have similar crime rates as areas that have a have much higher population density. Now that "poverty + population density" can't be used, it's time to move on to the next excuse.

Oh look, another squirrel!

 

[Thermal]

Except for the mass shootings that don't use assault weapons. The virginia tech shooting was done with two ordinary semi-auto pistols. One was even a .22.

Assault weapon bans are pretty much worthless, especially when written with grandfather clauses that mean existing weapons remain in circulation indefinitely. For example, pre-ban rifles are still available in Mass some 30 years after the ban was put into place in '93, at only a somewhat inflated price point.

Nibbling around the edge of the turd sandwich is no way to solve the problem, even if you believe top-down prohibition is a viable solution.

Outright banning and mandatory confiscation of all semi-auto (hell, all repeating) firearms is probably the step needed to even approach something that will even have an impact, and I very much doubt our current political class has the stomach for that.

Agreed. A shooter can be slowed down by restricting how many rounds can be fired before reloading, and how quickly. That wouldn't stop a determined mass killer, but might reduce the casualties if he can't crack off 50 people-liquifying rounds in 15 seconds.

 

[smartcooky]

Probably because they don't fit the narrative. Most mass shootings are either dudes killing their families or gang related and typically use a pistol.

They also don't make most folks go,"****, that could happen to me!"

Boom!!!

 

[Thermal]

Boom!!!

*Americans instinctively duck*

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... We see the identical pattern forum-wide. Psycho Amish Massage Parlor shooter was outrageous and worth a lot of opinions because it was a white guy who was anti-Asian (the trendy hate crime). When that narrative fell apart, the thread got quiet. Over and over, the same pattern.

Whenever violence is targeted or situational, one can hear news of a killing and place oneself mentally out of danger by reason of probability, or by vowing to turn in odd family members to some authority, or to avoid high crime areas. A random killer is an unforeseeable danger, thus no mitigation is possible, and there is therefore no sense of control. This is why mass murders, in general, get the sensational coverage and cause the fear they do.

Next, in this specific category of mass killing, it is true that the bulk of the incidents in the USA involve White males. Not all of them, but most. Where your narrative falls apart is in stating that others argue it is always Whites, which is of course untrue. Yet you feel free to say that your view applies forum-wide in the same breath.

And why is that so? Who in the US (or Anglo world) feels no pressure from, say, probable retaliation from a larger or dominant majority, or from suffocating public authority? In the US, the historical and contemporary answer is decidedly "White males". Were the power dynamics different, things would undoubtedly be elsewise in terms of demographics. But in the US it is, and has been, White males in many things, owing to the same reasons. Including in this, in committing acts of domestic terror, they have the swagger to feel rightfully in command and to punish whoever on whatever grounds. Far loser of mind, even, than an ISIS terrorist, who usually can produce an argument when asked.

This may be hard to accept, rather, it is hard to accept, and that is, in a nutshell, the core, deep, number one issue American males have, and a very good reason the nation can go to war at the drop of a hat: lack of meaningful accountability. Well, except for faggot Democrats like Carter giving away our Panama Canal, by golly! (Central American refugees from failed regimes, the US military, and the Banana Wars are now only causally related in "left-wing propaganda"; real, honest-to-goodness facts and terrible ongoing consequences be damned. Git them damned epithets off my lawn! Build the Wall!).

Sorry you were feeling put upon. Didn't have a right to, though.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Agreed. A shooter can be slowed down by restricting how many rounds can be fired before reloading, and how quickly. That wouldn't stop a determined mass killer, but might reduce the casualties if he can't crack off 50 people-liquifying rounds in 15 seconds.

The assault weapon ban, as has been instituted in the past, has very little to do with effective fire rate. Magazine restrictions slow people down a bit, but we're not talking much.

This is pure speculation, but even in a hypothetical world where semi auto rifles and pistols are very rare, I think we'd just see lower tech mass shooters that are nearly as effective. Rampage shooters prefer the AR-15, because why wouldn't you pick the best on your suicide mission, but a pump shotgun and a couple revolvers would probably do the job just as well in nearly every circumstance.

 

[Dr.Sid]

The assault weapon ban, as has been instituted in the past, has very little to do with effective fire rate. Magazine restrictions slow people down a bit, but we're not talking much.

This is pure speculation, but even in a hypothetical world where semi auto rifles and pistols are very rare, I think we'd just see lower tech mass shooters that are nearly as effective. Rampage shooters prefer the AR-15, because why wouldn't you pick the best on your suicide mission, but a pump shotgun and a couple revolvers would probably do the job just as well in nearly every circumstance.

Or van, or can of gas. Depends on what's popular where you live. Still guns are very effective if you want kill people.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Or van, or can of gas. Depends on what's popular where you live. Still guns are very effective if you want kill people.

Sure, guns are best even for a layperson. I suppose a bomb is probably the best tool, but that takes some reading, technical skill, and more careful planning. Any dingus can walk into a gun store and walk out with a highly effective, rarely malfunctioning killing machine and manage to figure out which side the death comes out.

Well, almost anyone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Gerald_Ford_in_Sacramento

My point is that the Assault weapon ban is itself an especially useless piece of legislation. Magazine fed repeating firearms, even AWB compliant versions, are prefect substitutes, and cruder manually fired repeaters are only a bit worse and would still likely lead to a large bodycount.

 

[Thermal]

The assault weapon ban, as has been instituted in the past, has very little to do with effective fire rate. Magazine restrictions slow people down a bit, but we're not talking much.

This is pure speculation, but even in a hypothetical world where semi auto rifles and pistols are very rare, I think we'd just see lower tech mass shooters that are nearly as effective. Rampage shooters prefer the AR-15, because why wouldn't you pick the best on your suicide mission, but a pump shotgun and a couple revolvers would probably do the job just as well in nearly every circumstance.

Theoretically, this is true. If only we had some other first World nations that tried a widespread gun ban in modern times to compare results with. Guess we'll never know.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Theoretically, this is true. If only we had some other first World nations that tried a widespread gun ban in modern times to compare results with. Guess we'll never know.

Sure, let me know when outright gun confiscation is being suggested.

Maybe there will be an AWB revival. Maybe. even that token, pointless measure is a long shot. Outright confiscation and banning is a fantasy in this country.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

If the shooter was offended by anti Muslim attitudes, why would he go to a town known for liberal views and tolerance to shoot random people?

Just one more indication that the motive didn't have a rational basis.

Boulder is an overwhelmingly white city (where Blacks frequently complain about being harassed by the police) and the area of Boulder where that grocery store is even whiter than the city overall. If the shooter's goal was to target whites of European ancestry, that store would have been as good a choice as any in the Denver-Boulder area and a better choice than any in Arvada. I'm not saying that this was what happened, I'm just throwing it out for discussion since it isn't implausible (and because I'm in the mood to be contrarian).

Boulder's liberalism is more rhetoric than reality. The prevailing philosophy there is NIMBYism. They've made extensive efforts to ensure that the city is limited to affluent people.

 

[Thermal]

Whenever violence is targeted or situational, one can hear news of a killing and place oneself mentally out of danger by reason of probability, or by vowing to turn in odd family members to some authority, or to avoid high crime areas. A random killer is an unforeseeable danger, thus no mitigation is possible, and there is therefore no sense of control. This is why mass murders, in general, get the sensational coverage and cause the fear they do.

Again, in a nutshell: do you think black people in cities might fear the same random and unforeseeable shooting? More importantly, is that danger statistically far more imminent? The difference is not such a chasm to imagine.

Next, in this specific category of mass killing, it is true that the bulk of the incidents in the USA involve White males. Not all of them, but most.

Demonstrably untrue, with data posted upthread. Whitey is statistically less likely to be a spree shooter. The only area whites seem overrepresented is in the 10+ body count range, which are very rare. They certainly don't hold a candle to random death on many city streets, all in.

Where your narrative falls apart is in stating that others argue it is always Whites, which is of course untrue. Yet you feel free to say that your view applies forum-wide in the same breath.

And why is that so? Who in the US (or Anglo world) feels no pressure from, say, probable retaliation from a larger or dominant majority, or from suffocating public authority? In the US, the historical and contemporary answer is decidedly "White males". Were the power dynamics different, things would undoubtedly be elsewise in terms of demographics. But in the US it is, and has been, White males in many things, owing to the same reasons. Including in this, in committing acts of domestic terror, they have the swagger to feel rightfully in command and to punish whoever on whatever grounds. Far loser of mind, even, than an ISIS terrorist, who usually can produce an argument when asked.

This may be hard to accept, rather, it is hard to accept, and that is, in a nutshell, the core, deep, number one issue American males have, and a very good reason the nation can go to war at the drop of a hat: lack of meaningful accountability. Well, except for faggot Democrats like Carter giving away our Panama Canal, by golly! (Central American refugees from failed regimes, the US military, and the Banana Wars are now only causally related in "left-wing propaganda"; real, honest-to-goodness facts and terrible ongoing consequences be damned. Git them damned epithets off my lawn! Build the Wall!).

Sorry you were feeling put upon. Didn't have a right to, though.

I get what you are saying about white males leading the power structure. But a lot of people forget that a bunch of us white cats are just as alienated from the power elites as people of color. I have far more personal anecdotes about being abused by cops than them being my ally. The world is not nearly so black and white, so to speak. It's far more have v have nots. The danger to my personal white ass is far more drive bys in the neighborhoods I frequent than a movie theater or campus.