• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Split Thread Racism and Mass shootings

Bogative

Master Poster
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
2,974
You still here?
I am.


This has been answered many times. You choosing not to accept the answers is not our problem.
You're mistaken. I asked a fellow forum member to back up his claim that I exclude mass shootings because the shooters were white.

There have been several other members accuse me of same over the years and I have asked them to present examples of me excluding shootings.

Zero people have provided the answers.



This is the thread to discuss racism and mass shootings

Split from

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=366219

Posted By: jimbob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your problem is not that you have too many "black*" murderers using firearms, it is not that you have too many of whatever other USA peculiar "racial classification" you want to subdivide your population by murderers using firearms it is that you have too many murders committed with firearms. (Never mind all the other killings by firearms and woundings caused by firearms.)



*I'm assuming the old fashioned legal "one drop" rule.
 
Your problem is not that you have too many "black*" murderers using firearms, it is not that you have too many of whatever other USA peculiar "racial classification" you want to subdivide your population by murderers using firearms it is that you have too many murders committed with firearms. (Never mind all the other killings by firearms and woundings caused by firearms.)



*I'm assuming the old fashioned legal "one drop" rule.
 
Your problem is not that you have too many "black*" murderers using firearms, it is not that you have too many of whatever other USA peculiar "racial classification" you want to subdivide your population by murderers using firearms it is that you have too many murders committed with firearms. (Never mind all the other killings by firearms and woundings caused by firearms.)



*I'm assuming the old fashioned legal "one drop" rule.

If the vast majority of mass-shooters were urban irish catholics, don't you think that would be something we should investigate and understand?

You can't honestly suggest that when a specific cultural group dominates a certain sociological event its unworthy of researching and understanding.
 
At the risk of endless repetition:

When a mass shooting occurs, being a mass of people shot, statistics show that it is overwhelmingly a black man/men on the trigger. Statistics also show that these shootings are overwhelmingly "personal", that is, directed at specific people (the recent recounting shows multiple family executions and social gathering fights that escalated).

But when we talk about mass shootings, we are normally thinking of the random mass shooter, who walks into a large public gathering and starts taking random people out. Statistics show that white males are disproportionately (although not overwhelmingly) on the trigger. When we factor in highest fatalities, white boys again tip the scales, possibly correlating with a preference for accurate high powered weapons instead of a Saturday night special in the waistband.

So yes Bogative, you are right. Your use of GVA as a credible source and your recounting is accurate. But you are not going to get a concession from the posters who have accused you of not reporting white shooters, in part because you are sledgehammering the living **** out of the issue to a degree that it is no longer the point. The subject most people want to talk about is the random shooter, usually politically motivated. It's a terrifying thought to go to a movie or the grocery store and be confronted with some whack job with an AR-15. Posters do not identify with being at a block party or "da club" and getting caught in the crossfire. That's "their problem", to put it bluntly. I personally don't agree; a lot of the establishments and neighborhoods I frequent, I'm looking a mite pale, if you catch my drift. But can we roundly agree that you have made your point, are correct, will not get an honest response, and move on to more productive discussion than screaming "lookit, a BLACK MAN shot people again"?
 
At the risk of endless repetition:

When a mass shooting occurs, being a mass of people shot, statistics show that it is overwhelmingly a black man/men on the trigger. Statistics also show that these shootings are overwhelmingly "personal", that is, directed at specific people (the recent recounting shows multiple family executions and social gathering fights that escalated).

But when we talk about mass shootings, we are normally thinking of the random mass shooter, who walks into a large public gathering and starts taking random people out. Statistics show that white males are disproportionately (although not overwhelmingly) on the trigger. When we factor in highest fatalities, white boys again tip the scales, possibly correlating with a preference for accurate high powered weapons instead of a Saturday night special in the waistband.

So yes Bogative, you are right. Your use of GVA as a credible source and your recounting is accurate. But you are not going to get a concession from the posters who have accused you of not reporting white shooters, in part because you are sledgehammering the living **** out of the issue to a degree that it is no longer the point. The subject most people want to talk about is the random shooter, usually politically motivated. It's a terrifying thought to go to a movie or the grocery store and be confronted with some whack job with an AR-15. Posters do not identify with being at a block party or "da club" and getting caught in the crossfire. That's "their problem", to put it bluntly. I personally don't agree; a lot of the establishments and neighborhoods I frequent, I'm looking a mite pale, if you catch my drift. But can we roundly agree that you have made your point, are correct, will not get an honest response, and move on to more productive discussion than screaming "lookit, a BLACK MAN shot people again"?

The members of this forum have made it DAMN clear that we should not distinguish between mass-shooters that are crime, gang, drug related and those who are random shooters wearing body armor, using an ar-15, carrying hundreds of rounds, driven by emotional termoil or extremist ideology.

That's why the obvious focus should be on black men as they are the majority of culprits.

We should research why this is and how we can reduce it.

6% of the US population being responsible for 29% of mass-shootings is not something to be ignored.
 
Last edited:
The members of this forum have made it DAMN clear that we should not distinguish between mass-shooters that are crime, gang, drug related and those who are random shooters wearing body armor, using an ar-15, carrying hundreds of rounds, driven by emotional termoil or extremist ideology.

That's why the obvious focus should be on black men as they are the majority of culprits.

We should research why this is and how we can reduce it.

6% of the US population being responsible for 29% of mass-shootings is not something to be ignored.

I reckon Thermal has it. At least for some of the most garrulous posters on here they're really only interested in the random shootings which are apparently more likely to involve white shooters. Why? well for a start the shooters are white, and for seconds they might just be right wing....
 
The members of this forum have made it DAMN clear that we should not distinguish between mass-shooters that are crime, gang, drug related and those who are random shooters wearing body armor, using an ar-15, carrying hundreds of rounds, driven by emotional termoil or extremist ideology.

That's why the obvious focus should be on black men as they are the majority of culprits.

We should research why this is and how we can reduce it.

...snip...

Fixed that for you.

And we know why - you have too many guns and not enough gun control. It really needs no more research.

As to how to reduce it - again we know how: introduce adequate gun controls. That could still be up for some research but again it really isn't needed there are dozens of countries you can look at for how to control guns, what legislation is needed, what enforcement is needed and so on.

It is a political will problem.
 
The members of this forum have made it DAMN clear that we should not distinguish between mass-shooters that are crime, gang, drug related and those who are random shooters wearing body armor, using an ar-15, carrying hundreds of rounds, driven by emotional termoil or extremist ideology.

That's why the obvious focus should be on black men as they are the majority of culprits.

We should research why this is and how we can reduce it.

Depends on the discussion. If we are focusing on raw shooting stats, we need to factor in all bodies with bullets in them. If we are focusing on the more rare (but more terrifying) idea of a random shooter at the grocery store or movie theater or school, we focus accordingly. I think the trick is to keep motivations clear and focus less on skin color. Both need addressing, and all the victims have value, but we can talk about them separately or together, as the discourse demands.

6% of the US population being responsible for 29% of mass-shootings is not something to be ignored.

And 13% of the demographic being responsible for 54% of the murder victims should not be ignored, either. Two different paradigms, using the same out-of-control tools.
 
Last edited:
I would like to know why black Americans make up such a high percentage of mass shootings.

Or is it unacceptable and racist to ask such a question?
 
That certainly seems to be one of our problems.

Do you not think we have too many black murderers using firearms?

Do you think we have to few black murderers using firearms?

I meant what I said and I thought it was very clear - you have too many people using guns to murder people.

Whether they are one of your peculiar USA "racial" definitions makes not the slightest difference - you have too many people, well really males killing people with guns. (And of course, also wounding people with guns.)
 
I would like to know why black Americans make up such a high percentage of mass shootings.

Or is it unacceptable and racist to ask such a question?

We know why - but it is something that won't be accepted by those who really want to stop "politically incorrect" inconvenient answers.
 
I would like to know why black Americans make up such a high percentage of mass shootings.

Or is it unacceptable and racist to ask such a question?

It's a fair question if we are being pure skeptics. The problem is, it's the exact question a hard core racist would ask, hiding behind a fig leaf of skepticism, to advance a racist POV. So you kind of can't win by asking it.
 
It's a fair question if we are being pure skeptics. The problem is, it's the exact question a hard core racist would ask, hiding behind a fig leaf of skepticism, to advance a racist POV. So you kind of can't win by asking it.

I agree that it's the exact question a racist would ask, but only a moron would conclude that to ask the question makes one a racist. That's the kind of broken logic this board is supposed to be immune to.
 
I would like to know why black Americans make up such a high percentage of mass shootings.

Or is it unacceptable and racist to ask such a question?

I am not sure if you are being racist.
If you think being black is the cause then yes you are undoubtedly a racist.
If instead you think there is simply a correlation then you are probably not a racist.

I only say probably because actions are louder than words. Do you make an effort to understand why there might be a correlation or do you instead keep banging on about race?
 
Whether they are one of your peculiar USA "racial" definitions makes not the slightest difference - you have too many people, well really males killing people with guns.

FTFY. If we have to pretend to not notice they are black males, then we should probably pretend to not notice they're males in the first place. :)
 
I am not sure if you are being racist.
If you think being black is the cause then yes you are undoubtedly a racist.
If instead you think there is simply a correlation then you are probably not a racist.

I only say probably because actions are louder than words. Do you make an effort to understand why there might be a correlation or do you instead keep banging on about race?

I believe and most Americans believe that mass shootings is a very different phenomenon than simple shootings, and if one cultural population in the USA seems to be over represented in such terrible acts we should investigate why that is.
 
I am not sure if you are being racist.
If you think being black is the cause then yes you are undoubtedly a racist.
If instead you think there is simply a correlation then you are probably not a racist.

I only say probably because actions are louder than words. Do you make an effort to understand why there might be a correlation or do you instead keep banging on about race?

I'm inclined to think that many black Americans have been screwed over so relentlessly and for so long that they've built up a generational resentment towards mainstream/white majority culture, and feel like they are fending for themselves, hence the inclination towards handling problems on their own, with all the personal power flexing they can muster. And I sympathize with that. If I were black, looking at my history running from slavery to Jim Crow and redlining, to my lousy public school to the neighborhood cop with the Punisher sticker on his personal pick up truck, I'd be pretty inclined to tell the mainstream culture to go **** itself too.
 
There's not "simply a correlation" when the numbers are that skewed.

Me thinks you are a racist. Unless you have evidence that it can not possibly be a correlation and that there is causation.

How skewed is this data?

Screen-Shot-2017-08-15-at-5.37.43-PM.png
 
I believe and most Americans believe that mass shootings is a very different phenomenon than simple shootings, and if one cultural population in the USA seems to be over represented in such terrible acts we should investigate why that is.

So rather than establishing why there is a correlation you simply repeat the link
<Checks out choices in my previous post> I am going with racist.
 
Me thinks you are a racist.

Who cares?

Unless you have evidence that it can not possibly be a correlation and that there is causation.

That's just silly. There's no need for anyone to show that there "can not possibly be a correlation" to realize that there is causation.

My statement that "there's not simply a correlation when the numbers are that skewed" applies to the fact that most shooters are male as well.

You're just so ideologically afraid of being seen as a racist that your critical thinking skills have been hijacked.
 
Who care


That's just silly. There's no need for anyone to show that there "can not possibly be a correlation" to realize that there is causation.

My statement that "there's not simply a correlation when the numbers are that skewed" applies to the fact that most shooters are male as well.

You're just so ideologically afraid of being seen as a racist that your critical thinking skills have been hijacked.

When you say "There's no need for anyone to show that there "can not possibly be a correlation" to realize that there is causation." Can you apply that to show causation in the ice cream chart.

When you decide there is causation simply by looking at a chart and seeing correlation tells me that it is your critical thinking that is awry.
 
Last edited:
If the vast majority of mass-shooters were urban irish catholics, don't you think that would be something we should investigate and understand?

You can't honestly suggest that when a specific cultural group dominates a certain sociological event its unworthy of researching and understanding.

They were talking about a “racial” group not a specific cultural group.
 
Fixed that for you.

And we know why - you have too many guns and not enough gun control. It really needs no more research.

As to how to reduce it - again we know how: introduce adequate gun controls. That could still be up for some research but again it really isn't needed there are dozens of countries you can look at for how to control guns, what legislation is needed, what enforcement is needed and so on.

It is a political will problem.

How many of these mass shootings are done by lawful gun owners? Brazil had really tough gun control, and only law-abiding public suffered.
 
We know why - but it is something that won't be accepted by those who really want to stop "politically incorrect" inconvenient answers.

Yep. One of the main contributors is absent fathers. The societal consequences are huge. For nearly every life outcome, an absent father sets you back.
 
Why ever not?

I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking. Maybe it’s a British/American English difference, but the question “why ever not?” makes little sense to me.

My point in the post that you quoted was to ask why you think it’s statistically important that a disproportionate group of shooters being male is somehow significant, but a disproportionate group of shooters being black should be taken as being insignificant.
 
Yep. One of the main contributors is absent fathers. The societal consequences are huge. For nearly every life outcome, an absent father sets you back.

Raising 2 sons with absent fathers, I don't agree. Not only did it not set them back, but they went on to put themselves through college, and went into law enforcement careers, and have long term, happy marriages.
 
Raising 2 sons with absent fathers, I don't agree. Not only did it not set them back, but they went on to put themselves through college, and went into law enforcement careers, and have long term, happy marriages.

An absent father is not a guarrantee of adverse life outcomes. But your chances of positive life outcomes are so much better when the father is there.

Exposure to Single Parenthood in Childhood and Later Mental Health, Educational, Economic, and Criminal Behavior Outcomes

Growing up in single-parent families and the criminal involvement of adolescents: a systematic review
 
Last edited:
Why does the race of the shooter even matter? Reduce the number of shootings, and you will reduce the number of black people shooting. I'd be more interested in other correlations, like socioeconomic status. Are more poor people committing shootings? Perhaps you can reduce that by making guns harder for poor people to get.

When anyone of whatever race can get a gun by swapping it for a Benjamin in a dark alley in Detroit, perhaps that is the problem you need to deal with.
 
When anyone of whatever race can get a gun by swapping it for a Benjamin in a dark alley in Detroit, perhaps that is the problem you need to deal with.

Arresting and prosecuting criminals and putting them in prision away from society? What a novel idea. Think that was tried recenty in Central America. What results?
 
Why would poverty cause mass shootings? These mass shootings are not robberies where a poor person is trying to get money or goods.
 
Why would poverty cause mass shootings? These mass shootings are not robberies where a poor person is trying to get money or goods.

Poverty doesn't cause mass shootings. Otherwise, Asians in New York City would be high in the crime stats.
 

Back
Top Bottom