Today's Mass Shooting

[Warp12]

No, that is not the real question.


When you read that four people were shot, the real question should not be "what color were the victims", nor "what color was the shooter". It is sad that the question is even deemed relevant.

Catch the criminal, regardless of color. Devote full resources to identifying and capturing the criminal, regardless of what color the victims are. Treat people as individuals, instead of as representatives of some sort of "race", which I put in quote marks because it's an ill defined term of no particular significance.

It is relevant in determining whether the claim is valid, regarding a connection between mass shootings and race.

It is also relevant because you can't address underlying causes without knowing the totality of the facts. People act as though cultural differences do not have a potential role in matters. Well, at least sometimes people act like that.

 

[Meadmaker]

Would it be reasonable for white people to also be afraid to walk their dogs and go grocery shopping? After all, the above happens to white people as well.

There have been neighborhoods I lived in where I was afraid to walk the streets. If you live in a place where bad things happen to people walking the streets, it is reasonable to be afraid they might happen, yes.

There is pretty close to zero chance that I will be hassled by a cop for no reason. When I had long hair as a youth, there was a much higher chance. If I were a young black male, there would be an even higher chance. That's really unfortunate. Hair length and skin color should not be correlated with being hassled by police, or beaten by police, or murdered by police.......but they are.

How often do you hear the Obamas, BLM, or the like saying they're living in fear because of the epidemic of black on black crime. Or as Bogative has alluded to, how often do you hear Obama say "if I had a son, he'd look like that" of one of the countless victims of black on black crime?

I posted a quote earlier from the BLM website saying that they "are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise." Do you think they'd be interested in hearing your statement in bold? Not only would there be no interest, but you'd be told to "shut up, racist!"

I can't even follow the reasoning here. Well, I can, but it's fallacious, to be generous.

It's the "We should ignore bad thing X because it isn't as bad as bad thing Y." Is there a name for that fallacy?

As an aside, I do not think it is fair to say that "black lives are systematically targeted for demise". So, lah-dee-dah, political activists use hyperbolic speech. Next thing you know someone will start calling illegal immigrants "bad hombres" or something. It's politicians inflating problems, for their own benefit. Sadly, it works.

I do think it's fair to say that black people are targeted for harassment, and I do think it's fair to say that sometimes that harassment goes farther and ends up with lots of bad things, including murder. When that happens, should we say, "We should look at that other murder instead."

 

[Meadmaker]

It is relevant in determine whether the claim is valid, regarding a connection between mass shootings and race.

It is also relevant because you can't address underlying causes without knowing the totality of the facts. People act as though cultural differences do not have a potential role in matters. Well, at least sometimes people act like that.

There's a difference between a claim being true, and a claim being valid.

 

[Warp12]

It is relevant in determining whether the claim is valid, regarding a connection between mass shootings and race.

It is also relevant because you can't address underlying causes without knowing the totality of the facts. People act as though cultural differences do not have a potential role in matters. Well, at least sometimes people act like that.

There's a difference between a claim being true, and a claim being valid.

I pretty sure you know what I am getting at. But if you don't wish to address my full statements, so be it. If you want to instead belabor "valid" vs "true", knock yourself out.

 

[Bogative]

No, that is exactly his point. He nailed his colours to the mast a long time ago.

This is true. In a different thread, a fellow poster incorrectly claimed that most mass shootings were committed by whites, I corrected him, he said I was stupid and put me on the ignore list. I started posting in this thread to show that I was right.

I have moved on to other reasons for posting at this point.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

There have been neighborhoods I lived in where I was afraid to walk the streets. If you live in a place where bad things happen to people walking the streets, it is reasonable to be afraid they might happen, yes.

So is that a 'yes' then that white people should be afraid to walk their dogs and go to the grocery store?

I can't even follow the reasoning here. Well, I can, but it's fallacious, to be generous.

It's the "We should ignore bad thing X because it isn't as bad as bad thing Y." Is there a name for that fallacy?

There isn't a name for that fallacy, but there is a name for the one you've just trotted out - the straw man fallacy. Because I never said we should ignore bad thing X.

I do think it's fair to say that black people are targeted for harassment, and I do think it's fair to say that sometimes that harassment goes farther and ends up with lots of bad things, including murder.

Do white people ever get murdered by the police?

When that happens, should we say, "We should look at that other murder instead."

Again, with the straw man.

So, why do you think the Obamas and BLM are being so selective about what they're afraid of when going to the grocery store? They seem to be committing an even worse fallacy than the one you fallaciously accused me of:

"We should ignore bad thing X because it's worse than bad thing Y."

Also, I'd love to hear your take on a white guy in a MAGA hat saying he was afraid to walk his dog because he thought he'd be murdered by a black person. Totally reasonable?

 

[Meadmaker]

So is that a 'yes' then that white people should be afraid to walk their dogs and go to the grocery store?

It depends where they live.

There isn't a name for that fallacy, but there is a name for the one you've just trotted out - the straw man fallacy. Because I never said we should ignore bad thing X.

I stand corrected, then. I must not have understood the reasoning at all. I took your references to Barack Obama's comments about Trayvon Martin to be some sort of diversion, saying that we shouldn't care about white people killing black people, because more black people are killed by black people. (Those were my X and Y.)

It's good to know that you aren't thinking that way, because that would be kind of stupid, or, to use a ten cent word, fallacious.

But I can't figure out how Barack Obama talking about Trayvon Martin is somehow relevant to mass shootings. I can't figure out the connection.

You'll have to explain the relevance to me, unless it isn't relevant. I can't figure out why it would be relevant to the issue of mass shootings.

 

[Bogative]

Kansas City, Missouri

4 wounded.

Police were dispatched to St. Luke’s Hospital to interview the first of four gunshot victims in what appeared to be a related incident. there were four shooting victims — three men and one woman. The first victim, a male, entered St. Luke’s with a gunshot wound to the shoulder, which he said he got at a club near 43rd Street and Indiana Avenue. He chose not to identify the suspect or to prosecute.

Snitches get stitches.



Santa Rosa, California

1 dead, 3 wounded after a drive-by shooting at a block party. One of the few instances where "gang activity" is mentioned in the article.

 

[Bogative]

Peoria, Illinois

4 wounded while celebrating Independence Day. Two juveniles and two adults.

Monday evening, anti-violence groups hit the streets. Peoria Community Against Violence and Stepping 4ward 2gether knocked on doors on Haungs Avenue to offer support and guidance.

 

[arthwollipot]

I must have missed it. I think it's a straw man. I don't think many are arguing that at all. The only role MAGA, etc. plays is by demanding liberal gun laws that allow people to carry guns with little or no restriction. I haven't seen any claims that white people are shooting black people.

I definitely got the impression that Bogative is arguing that white supremacists are not a large threat that needs to be taken seriously. This may be the "other reasons" mentioned in post #2825.

 

[Meadmaker]

I definitely got the impression that Bogative is arguing that white supremacists are not a large threat that needs to be taken seriously. This may be the "other reasons" mentioned in post #2825.

I think that he, and maybe others, are trying to say that, but it's ridiculous.

The threat posed by terrorists and the threat posed by ordinary criminals are not comparable. You can't say that this threat is bigger than that threat. You can't count bodies and say that one or the other isn't worth pursuing. Likewise, the same is true about police brutality and ordinary criminals. You can't say that one is a bigger threat than the other by counting bodies. They threaten in very different ways.

And that's why the argument is a straw man. No one is saying that police kill more than hoodlums. No one is saying that white supremacists kill more than gangs or whoever is doing all the killing in the cities and in the majority black neighborhoods. Refuting that argument is refuting the straw man.

Unless, maybe, there is some other reason for bringing up street crime figures and calling attention to the color of the skin of the perpetrators. However, that sure ends up sounding to me like we shouldn't worry about one threat because something else is a bigger threat. Either way, it's phony.

What I will give credit to Bogative for, though, is calling attention to the huge amount of crime in the United States, and the associated body count. The argument shouldn't be "but Chicago." It should be "and Chicago", because the violence in Chicago and elsewhere is really, really, bad, and it's important to pay attention to it.

I was in particular shocked by the number of unsolved murders. I think in this day and age, with the surveillance that we have, it really ought to be difficult to gun down people in the street and get away with it. That ought to be something we can stop.

ETA: "Stop" is optimistic, but definitely we should be able to do better than we're doing.

 

[Nessie]

Many will not count as mass shootings, but....

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1625568791

"At least 150 Americans were shot dead over the Independence Day bank holiday weekend as the US suffered its latest bout of violence.
The worst affected city was Chicago, where 14 of 88 people who were shot died of their injuries, during what was described by police as the “most challenging weekend of the year”. The injured included a five-year-old girl and a six-year-old girl."

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I think that he, and maybe others, are trying to say that, but it's ridiculous.

The threat posed by terrorists and the threat posed by ordinary criminals are not comparable. You can't say that this threat is bigger than that threat. You can't count bodies and say that one or the other isn't worth pursuing. Likewise, the same is true about police brutality and ordinary criminals. You can't say that one is a bigger threat than the other by counting bodies. They threaten in very different ways.

And that's why the argument is a straw man. No one is saying that police kill more than hoodlums. No one is saying that white supremacists kill more than gangs or whoever is doing all the killing in the cities and in the majority black neighborhoods. Refuting that argument is refuting the straw man.

Unless, maybe, there is some other reason for bringing up street crime figures and calling attention to the color of the skin of the perpetrators. However, that sure ends up sounding to me like we shouldn't worry about one threat because something else is a bigger threat. Either way, it's phony.

What I will give credit to Bogative for, though, is calling attention to the huge amount of crime in the United States, and the associated body count. The argument shouldn't be "but Chicago." It should be "and Chicago", because the violence in Chicago and elsewhere is really, really, bad, and it's important to pay attention to it.

I was in particular shocked by the number of unsolved murders. I think in this day and age, with the surveillance that we have, it really ought to be difficult to gun down people in the street and get away with it. That ought to be something we can stop.

ETA: "Stop" is optimistic, but definitely we should be able to do better than we're doing.

OK, you mentioned three things: White supremacy, police brutality, and "gangs or whoever is doing all the killing in the cities and in the majority black neighborhoods".

Two of them are being exaggerated and given a completely disproportionate focus, and the other is almost completely ignored. That last point explains why you, and so many others, are shocked by the number of unsolved murders. One of the other points explains why many are so far off the mark when asked to guess the number of unarmed black men killed in police incidents in a given year. It also explains why Michelle Obama was not challenged when she presented her alleged fears about dog walking and grocery shopping.

I agree that they're all bad, they're different and they'll probably never completely go away, but ideally we'd have none of the above. Really, in a civil conversation, that should always be assumed about your partner from the outset.

 

[Meadmaker]

OK, you mentioned three things: White supremacy, police brutality, and "gangs or whoever is doing all the killing in the cities and in the majority black neighborhoods".

Two of them are being exaggerated and given a completely disproportionate focus, and the other is almost completely ignored. That last point explains why you, and so many others, are shocked by the number of unsolved murders. One of the other points explains why many are so far off the mark when asked to guess the number of unarmed black men killed in police incidents in a given year. It also explains why Michelle Obama was not challenged when she presented her alleged fears about dog walking and grocery shopping.

I agree that they're all bad, they're different and they'll probably never completely go away, but ideally we'd have none of the above. Really, in a civil conversation, that should always be assumed about your partner from the outset.

(emphasis added)

I think you underestimate the consequences of police harassment and brutality, and thus consider the focus on it to be disproportionate. Black people, who actually experience the harassment and brutality, seem to think it's a pretty big deal.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

(emphasis added)

I think you underestimate the consequences of police harassment and brutality, and thus consider the focus on it to be disproportionate. Black people, who actually experience the harassment and brutality, seem to think it's a pretty big deal.

I'm only following the evidence.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm only following the evidence.

No you aren't. You haven't brought up any evidence to follow.


Bogative's use of this thread to highlight the number of mass shootings in black neighborhoods, with black perpetrators and black victims has really helped highlight something. It shows that as long as the victims are poor black folks, not many people are all that concerned about mass shootings. If a kid takes a gun to school and shoots up his white, middle class, classmates, that's a big deal. If a black kid does the same at a party, that's just another day in America.

I think it's also fair to say that the left-leaning media outlets don't want to highlight those shootings because it doesn't fit well with a narrative that they want to tell. I think that's all true.


What is not true is that it has anything at all to do with Michelle Obama's concerns about her daughters. It just isn't connected, but you brought it up anyway. It doesn't refute any leftist arguments about MAGA or about whit supremacists. It's just not relevant.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I think it's also fair to say that the left-leaning media outlets don't want to highlight those shootings because it doesn't fit well with a narrative that they want to tell. I think that's all true.

This is a hell of a claim that needs citation.

Local crime, including murder, frequently makes local news. Especially heinous crimes make national news.

You don't have to speculate about impure motives for why everyday crime isn't as newsworthy as acts of terrorism, like a synagogue shooting.

Indeed, things that once might have been considered huge news items have become more mundane. School shootings that might have previously been huge national news are often short cycle events or even just local news items. Unless you get to high body counts, school shootings are fairly mundane events in the US these days.

A white supremacist gunman opening fire in a public place isn't covered more because the lefties are trying to suppress stories of black crime, it's covered more because the story is more salacious and novel. In time, as these types of shootings continue, these kinds of stories may have less shock value.

Everyone even vaguely paying attention is well aware of the high crime rates of impoverished neighborhoods in certain large cities. Lack of news coverage isn't driving disinterest, it's quite the other way around. Not that many people care about the plight of these extremely poor communities, so news about crime in these areas rarely gains much traction, and in turn, news agency don't invest reporting resources to them.

 

[Meadmaker]

This is a hell of a claim that needs citation.

Local crime, including murder, frequently makes local news. Especially heinous crimes make national news.

You don't have to speculate about impure motives for why everyday crime isn't as newsworthy as acts of terrorism, like a synagogue shooting.

Indeed, things that once might have been considered huge news items have become more mundane. School shootings that might have previously been huge national news are often short cycle events or even just local news items. Unless you get to high body counts, school shootings are fairly mundane events in the US these days.

A white supremacist gunman opening fire in a public place isn't covered more because the lefties are trying to suppress stories of black crime, it's covered more because the story is more salacious and novel. In time, as these types of shootings continue, these kinds of stories may have less shock value.

Everyone even vaguely paying attention is well aware of the high crime rates of impoverished neighborhoods in certain large cities. Lack of news coverage isn't driving disinterest, it's quite the other way around. Not that many people care about the plight of these extremely poor communities, so news about crime in these areas rarely gains much traction, and in turn, news agency don't invest reporting resources to them.

All true.

There are a lot of different factors at work in deciding what gets covered, and how. I think what I referenced plays a role, but I think what you are talking about plays a bigger role.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

No you aren't. You haven't brought up any evidence to follow.

Illogical gibberish.

Bogative's use of this thread to highlight the number of mass shootings in black neighborhoods, with black perpetrators and black victims has really helped highlight something. It shows that as long as the victims are poor black folks, not many people are all that concerned about mass shootings.

More illogical gibberish. It doesn't show that many people are all concerned about mass shootings 'as long as the victims are poor black folks'. You're arguing with the conclusion first, or you would never have arrived there.

I think it's also fair to say that the left-leaning media outlets don't want to highlight those shootings because it doesn't fit well with a narrative that they want to tell. I think that's all true.

This is more reasonable, and many will point out that right wing media will similarly skew their reportage. The overton window on racial issues, and particularly police brutality are untethered from reality.

What is not true is that it has anything at all to do with Michelle Obama's concerns about her daughters.

Her (alleged) concerns about her daughter are part of a culture that is pushing a picture of police brutality that is completely untethered from reality. Her fears are irrational, to put it kindly.

 

[Meadmaker]

Her fears are irrational, to put it kindly.

My black friends disagree, but it doesn't have anything to do with mass shootings.