Today's Mass Shooting

[smartcooky]

I find Bogative's source more reliable for the simple fact that race and politics don't play any part in their statistics. Their methodology is extremely simple: Are there four or more victims? Yes? Then it's a mass shooting.

The topic of this thread was supposed to not so much be about all mass shootings, but about certain types of mass shootings - ones in which a disaffected, mentally ill or angry person, usually with no criminal record, or not known to be involved in crime, carries out a spree shooting attack in which they indiscriminately kill people whom they think have wronged them, or to be the cause of all their imagined or perceived problems. Examples of this are

- School spree shootings, in which a student or former student, attacks a school, university or place of education, indiscriminately kills anyone they come across - students or teachers. Examples: Sandy Hook Middle School, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School & Columbine High School.

- Workplace spree shootings, where an employee, former employee, customer, client or other person associated with that workplace, attacks that workplace and indiscriminately kills anyone they come across. Examples; the Excel Industries shootings, the Henry Pratt Manufacturing shootings and the Chrysler Stamping Plant killings.

- Politically or Religiously motivated spree shootings, where a person with the aforementioned motives attacks a church, mosque, synagogue or other place of worship, or a political rally or headquarters and indiscriminately kills anyone they come across. Examples; the Christchurch Mosque attacks, the Charleston Church shootings and the Tree of Life Synagogue shootings

Gangbangers killing people while expanding their territories, or because they want to take out a rival gangbanger, is of no interest whatsoever, because exploring their motives does not help to advance the discussion.

Also, the number of people killed does not matter in terms of the debate because it doesn't change the motivation, and it too does not help to advance the discussion. There could be no deaths and it still fits the criteria.

Unfortunately, Bogative has used the source you mention to twist the narrative or this thread in order to have it fit his racially biased agenda, and he has hijacked this thread for that purpose.

 

[Bogative]

My point is that it's a mainstream media source - perhaps the most mainstream of all media at that. It contradicts his immediately preceding complaint that mainstream media doesn't mention race unless the perpetrator is white.

I didn't say what you are claiming. You're twisting what I said into something you were hoping I said and presenting it as fact.

Where did I say "mainstream media"?
Why did you exclude "public officials"?
When did I say the mainstream media "doesn't mention race unless the perpetrator is white"?
Where did I say "the mainstream media refuses to mention race whenever it's a black person doing the thing"?
Where did I say or assert that "black people are responsible for 'all the bad things'"?

To answer my own questions:
I didn't because local media is guilty as well.
You excluded that because you were too anxious to go off on a tangent about something I didn't say.
I didn't say what you claim because it's simply not true, media will sometimes mention race even if the perpetrator is not white.
I didn't say the MSM does not mention race when it's a black person doing the thing, they usually do.
I didn't say black people are responsible for all the bad things, only the overwhelming majority of mass shootings.

If you would try reading for comprehension instead of jumping to conclusions, you would read the examples that I gave and understand that I was talking about a pattern that I noticed and later gave examples of. Christ on a pogo stick, you would think that on a "skeptics forum" there would be no need to have to qualify every statement with "not all."


About six months ago you accused me of intentionally excluding examples of white shooters in this thread, did you ever find any examples? Nah??? I didn't think so.

 

[Warp12]

Yes, please do explain why statista only listed 126 mass shootings over the last 40 years while gunviolencearchives.org listed over 350 in 2015 alone. GVA.org listed nearly 700 mass shootings last year and 135 already this year.

When I first read the stat of 126 mass shootings in 40 years, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.

From the Wiki:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

Mass Shootings are incidents involving multiple victims of firearm-related violence. The precise inclusion criteria are disputed, and there is no broadly accepted definition.

However, the GVA definition seems more realistic than some others which distort reality by omitting a huge number of incidents:

Gun Violence Archive, frequently cited by the press, defines a mass shooting as firearm violence resulting in at least four people being shot at roughly the same time and location, excluding the perpetrator. Using this definition, there have been 2,128 mass shootings since 2013, roughly one per day.

I am much more interested in the overall data related to the above than I am in the comparitively small number of outlier-type events.

 

[Bogative]

When I first read the stat of 126 mass shootings in 40 years, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.



However, the GVA definition seems more realistic than some others which distort reality by omitting a huge number of incidents:

Leftists love to trot out the GVA data when they think the large number of gun violence instances helps support there ambitions for gun control. When the exact same data is used to prove that blacks commit the overwhelming majority of mass shootings, hilarity ensues.

 

[Bogative]

This week's honorable mention:

9 wounded during an Easter celebration at a lounge in South Carolina.

Judging by a promotional flyer for the event, no Jedi mind tricks are needed to convince anyone these are not the domestic violence extremist – white supremacists the regime is looking for.

 

[bluesjnr]

The topic of this thread was supposed to not so much be about all mass shootings, but about certain types of mass shootings - ones in which a disaffected, mentally ill or angry person, usually with no criminal record, or not known to be involved in crime, carries out a spree shooting attack in which they indiscriminately kill people whom they think have wronged them, or to be the cause of all their imagined or perceived problems. Examples of this are

- School spree shootings, in which a student or former student, attacks a school, university or place of education, indiscriminately kills anyone they come across - students or teachers. Examples: Sandy Hook Middle School, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School & Columbine High School.

- Workplace spree shootings, where an employee, former employee, customer, client or other person associated with that workplace, attacks that workplace and indiscriminately kills anyone they come across. Examples; the Excel Industries shootings, the Henry Pratt Manufacturing shootings and the Chrysler Stamping Plant killings.

- Politically or Religiously motivated spree shootings, where a person with the aforementioned motives attacks a church, mosque, synagogue or other place of worship, or a political rally or headquarters and indiscriminately kills anyone they come across. Examples; the Christchurch Mosque attacks, the Charleston Church shootings and the Tree of Life Synagogue shootings

Gangbangers killing people while expanding their territories, or because they want to take out a rival gangbanger, is of no interest whatsoever, because exploring their motives does not help to advance the discussion.

Also, the number of people killed does not matter in terms of the debate because it doesn't change the motivation, and it too does not help to advance the discussion. There could be no deaths and it still fits the criteria.

Unfortunately, Bogative has used the source you mention to twist the narrative or this thread in order to have it fit his racially biased agenda, and he has hijacked this thread for that purpose.

Where on earth have you got all this from?

It can't be deduced from the thread title?

It certainly isn't stated in the opening post?

I think the thread you are looking for might be called, "Very specific situations where white people tend to be the shooter", or similar.

What Bogative has done, whether you like it or not, is provide data that conforms exactly to the thread title - Todays Mass Shooting.

 

[smartcooky]

Where on earth have you got all this from?

It can't be deduced from the thread title?

There is this thing called "reading comprehension" maybe you've heard of it... you are supposed to have learned in grade school

It certainly isn't stated in the opening post?

Really? Did you actually check ponderingturtle's opening post, in which he/she posted this link...

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/23/us/kentucky-high-school-shooting/index.html

.. or did you just wing it and hope I wouldn't check?

I think the thread you are looking for might be called, "Very specific situations where white people tend to be the shooter", or similar.

What Bogative has done, whether you like it or not, is provide data that conforms exactly to the thread title - Todays Mass Shooting.

If you are unaware that what I stated is what this thread is supposed to be about then you haven't been paying attention. It was ALL about the things I stated, until Bogative came in with his first post to the thread at post #1807 on 22nd June 2020 after over two and a half years, and started hijacking it to pursue his racially biased narrative.
.
.

 

[Bogative]

.. or did you just wing it and hope I wouldn't check?

I checked.

I checked when you originally made the same bogus claim a long time ago.

The title of the thread is Today's Mass Shooting. The title does not specify school shootings.

The link posted in the OP happened to be about a school shooting.

Nothing in the rest of the text posted in the OP could possibly be misconstrued as relating specifically to school shootings.

In fact the tags for this thread are "mass shootings, school shootings, shooting incidents."

The OP openly included shootings other than school shootings when the thread was started.

And just so there can be no doubt left in your mind, I will quote an exchange between the OP and other members – his ninth post.

Should we make this a sticky thread?

No need. We can just post here every time there's a new mass shooting. I doubt the thread will stay dormant too long.

Exactly no need for seperate threads for every mass shooting, that is just plain inefficient and confusing.

Thanks for playing.

 

[dann]

CNN's Shimon Prokupecz reports on multiple weekend shootings that took place in the US, including mass shootings at a Pittsburgh house party and a lounge in Hampton County, South Carolina.
From parties to malls, another violent weekend in America (CNN on YouTube, April 18, 2022)

 

[Bogative]

CNN must not know that using GVA's data is the racismz, what a bunch of white supremacists. Good for them anyhow, the new management may be serious about making the organization an actual news network instead of a propaganda outlet.

There were at least 10 mass shootings over the weekend, they only mentioned four. It's a start. Who knows, this could lead to them actually investigating who commits the most mass shootings instead of repeating the regime's talking points.

 

[bluesjnr]

There is this thing called "reading comprehension" maybe you've heard of it... you are supposed to have learned in grade school

Yup, I'm totally up to speed with reading comprehension. You seem somewhat over qualified in, "interpreting disingenuously", where did you get your qualification?

Really? Did you actually check ponderingturtle's opening post, in which he/she posted this link...

Oh for **** sake, of course I checked it! That's why I was able to call you out on the whole "The topic of this thread was supposed to not so much be..." BS you're peddling.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/23/us/kentucky-high-school-shooting/index.html

Here's the text that went with that link -

"Only two dead out of 19 at least. Kentucky I would have thought you could produce better shots than that, being beaten out by Connecticut so handily?"

I'm struggling to see all those, "here's what the the threads gonna be about", hints you are so adamant exist, there's nothing implicit nor explicit about how the thread should proceed. Maybe the title would give us some direction?

Today's Mass Shooting

Well, that seems to suggest that we should be discussing today's mass shooting and not smartcooky's extra special, specific versions of mass shootings.

.. or did you just wing it and hope I wouldn't check?

Somebody is certainly winging it........

If you are unaware that what I stated is what this thread is supposed to be about then you haven't been paying attention. It was ALL about the things I stated,

Possibly so, but not exclusively, and you don't get to set any rules, bossy boots.

You don't get to direct others where to shine the light and more so when that light exposes your agenda.

until Bogative came in with his first post to the thread at post #1807 on 22nd June 2020 after over two and a half years, and started hijacking it to pursue his racially biased narrative.
.
.

People are quite at liberty to attribute whatever agenda they wish to Bogatives posts without you attempting to shut him/her down, unasked, on others behalf. As I said, you don't get to make the rules.

Heck, even ponderingturtle doesn't get to make the rules!

 

[smartcooky]

Yup, I'm totally up to speed with reading comprehension. You seem somewhat over qualified in, "interpreting disingenuously", where did you get your qualification?



Oh for **** sake, of course I checked it! That's why I was able to call you out on the whole "The topic of this thread was supposed to not so much be..." BS you're peddling.



Here's the text that went with that link -

"Only two dead out of 19 at least. Kentucky I would have thought you could produce better shots than that, being beaten out by Connecticut so handily?"

I'm struggling to see all those, "here's what the the threads gonna be about", hints you are so adamant exist, there's nothing implicit nor explicit about how the thread should proceed. Maybe the title would give us some direction?

Today's Mass Shooting

Well, that seems to suggest that we should be discussing today's mass shooting and not smartcooky's extra special, specific versions of mass shootings.



Somebody is certainly winging it........



Possibly so, but not exclusively, and you don't get to set any rules, bossy boots.

You don't get to direct others where to shine the light and more so when that light exposes your agenda.



People are quite at liberty to attribute whatever agenda they wish to Bogatives posts without you attempting to shut him/her down, unasked, on others behalf. As I said, you don't get to make the rules.

Heck, even ponderingturtle doesn't get to make the rules!

I'm beginning I see that I need to tar you with the same brush as Bogative

 

[bluesjnr]

I'm beginning I see that I need to tar you with the same brush as Bogative

Really? How so?

In fact, the fact that you've written that as if your opinion of people has any merit whatsoever is telling.

Your shtick in threads such as these is past old.

 

[mgidm86]

Dividing these shootings up into groups suggests that certain people are the problem. We should be blaming someone.

Perhaps the powers that be want us pointing fingers at each other rather than the source of the problem...guns. Kind of like how we argue left vs right when the whole system and everyone in it is corrupt.

Is it a trick to keep us arguing about who are the bad guys rather than discussing the sad fact that we have to categorize shootings because they are so common?

Guns are the problem. Not blacks, not whites, not children, but guns. Figuring out why people are shooting each other and who is doing it solves nothing.

 

[Warp12]

Figuring out why people are shooting each other and who is doing it solves nothing.

I consider that argument to be completely without merit. Ridiculously so.

 

[cmikes]

Dividing these shootings up into groups suggests that certain people are the problem. We should be blaming someone.

Perhaps the powers that be want us pointing fingers at each other rather than the source of the problem...guns. Kind of like how we argue left vs right when the whole system and everyone in it is corrupt.

Is it a trick to keep us arguing about who are the bad guys rather than discussing the sad fact that we have to categorize shootings because they are so common?

Guns are the problem. Not blacks, not whites, not children, but guns. Figuring out why people are shooting each other and who is doing it solves nothing.

Guns are inanimate objects. People are responsible for their own actions. Or are cars responsible for drunk driving? Are knives responsible for stabbings? If guns are controlling people's minds and forcing criminals to shoot people, why does that not apply to any other inanimate object?

 

[Checkmite]

People are quite at liberty to attribute whatever agenda they wish to Bogatives posts without you attempting to shut him/her down, unasked, on others behalf. As I said, you don't get to make the rules.

And smartcooky is simply taking that very liberty which you acknowledge he has to attribute Bogative's transparent agenda to his posts. That's not "trying to shut him down", it's just pointing to the sky and saying it's blue. Only the forum admins could "shut him down", and they have already long explicitly stated that they have no interest in banning, filtering, or censoring white supremacist propaganda.

 

[bluesjnr]

And smartcooky is simply taking that very liberty which you acknowledge he has to attribute Bogative's transparent agenda to his posts. That's not "trying to shut him down", it's just pointing to the sky and saying it's blue. Only the forum admins could "shut him down", and they have already long explicitly stated that they have no interest in banning, filtering, or censoring white supremacist propaganda.

Of course, you are largely correct. Bogative can and will stand or fall on his/her own contributions.

Still, I see smartcooky's reactions as attempts to shut him down and you don't and that's absolutely fine. Smartcooky has his own agenda herein and bogative's posts run counter to it in many ways. They're shouting past one another at this stage.

It is entirely possible to separate bogatives's agenda from the data he provides...... if one wished to.

One point though, could you show me where the "forum admins" have "explicitly stated that they have no interest in banning, filtering, or censoring white supremacist propaganda."?

 

[smartcooky]

And smartcooky is simply taking that very liberty which you acknowledge he has to attribute Bogative's transparent agenda to his posts. That's not "trying to shut him down", it's just pointing to the sky and saying it's blue. Only the forum admins could "shut him down", and they have already long explicitly stated that they have no interest in banning, filtering, or censoring white supremacist propaganda.

Correct. There was no mention at all of gangbangers, drug dealers and violent criminals at all in that thread until two and a half years after it started, when Bogative came in with his racial "its the darkies who are the real criminals" agenda and started spamming the thread with his off-topic posts. Until that time, everyone participating in that thead understood (or at least appeared to understand) what was being discussed, and looking at some of BluesJnr's own posts, even he knew this as well.

 

[bluesjnr]

Correct. There was no mention at all of gangbangers, drug dealers and violent criminals at all in that thread until two and a half years after it started, when Bogative came in with his racial "its the darkies who are the real criminals" agenda and started spamming the thread with his off-topic posts. Until that time, everyone participating in that thead understood (or at least appeared to understand) what was being discussed, and looking at some of BluesJnr's own posts, even he knew this as well.

I got the impression he/she was responding to the, "it's whitey what commits most mass shootin's", vibe.