From what I can tell there are two definitions of a mass shooting most commonly used when refering to the subject, the FBI definition and "indiscriminate mass shootings". According to the FBI definition of a mass shooting (4 or more, either wounded or killed) on a yearly average some 70% of all mass shootings are committed by blacks, 85% are committed by non whites, the majority of these are gang related incidents, there are literally hundreds of them each year. Now, there's plenty of sources and arbitrary definitions for what an "indiscriminate mass shooting" is, it's supposed to be a shooting outside of a criminal activity, where the purpose is to simply take lives in numbers similar to the fbi definition, they vary highly in numbers and the time frame they encompass (some say there have been less than 90, others claim its more in the range of two or three hundred), broken down by demographics they are 50-something percent white, 60-something if you include white hispaninc, 20% black and so on. In other words regardles of what definition you use, whites are either underrepresented or barely properly represented. Blacks are heavily over represented under both definitions. The media uses either the FBI definition, or a combination of both, when refering to the numbers of shooting that occur yearly, or have occurred thus far in order to inflate them, but when they talk about "what causes" mass shootings they switch to the indiscriminate definition. Compile sources, debate, share thoughts, correct me if I'm wrong.
MASS SHOOTING STATISTICS, LIES AND MISCONCEPTIONS
Other urls found in this thread:
npr.org
twitter.com
>white (non-Muslim)
Is... that their definition of white? Not being muslim?
No, muslims are a religion, not a race or ethicity, being white can overlap with being muslim, somebody thought the distinction was needed.
That Boston bomber dude, and the dude who beat Connor Mac in UFC, among thousands of Shriners....
Also remember that the Burnette Chapel shooting and the Dallas police officers shooting specifically targeted whites. Not sure about Omar Thornton. Bring these up when somebody mentions "white supremacist mass shooters", or when the whole "I guess he isn't brown enough to be a terrorist" thing gets pulled out. Also, point out that any violent IRA incident is refered to as terrorism. Point out that islamic extremism takes lives daily, is heavily under reported in western media.
Fairly accurate breakdown. My main issues with the definitions that go beyond the number of people shot in one event are: 1.) Actual motives are often never determined and 2.) They are extremely subjective and seem to be devised for the sole purpose of increasing white representation/decreasing nonwhite representation. This is a big problem if your narrative is the vilification of whites as "dangerous," "mentally ill," "angry," etc.
And Trump/Republicans are playing right into this hand by lending support to "Red Flag" laws. It is a Leftist's *wet dream* to have the mechanisms in place to disarm or otherwise harass someone with an unapproved set of beliefs at the whim of some SJW "mental health professional."
It's worse than that. It seems that almost nobody in the US, including politicians and commentators on the right, is aware of these fairly simple manipulations as far as definition, demography, and cause goes. The "white mass shooter" mith is well established, people know almost nothing about other gun related crimes, in other words they have a narrow perspective made central to them thanks to media pressure.
Doesn't seem accurate, not sure what to think of it.
>The "white mass shooter" mith is well established, people know almost nothing about other gun related crimes, in other words they have a narrow perspective made central to them thanks to media pressure.
And that is exactly why they don't want anyone to paint a more accurate picture of the numbers and racial breakdown. They totally deflate the narrative.
I can see Macedonians pulling the trigger in pubs and at weddings, not sure what definition of a mass shooting they use, certainly possible getting hammered the way they do reduces accuracy so there isn't that much to report.
>Believing literally any mass shooting statistic
Official FBI statistics were called into question by an NPR article that tried to independently verify school shootings reported. Literally only 5% of the reports school shootings were able to be independently verified. 68 fucking percent were outright fabrications. The rest were either errors due to paperwork misfilings, incorrectly categorized, or some other bullshit that meant that a dude did not actually shoot up a school there but it was incorrectly filed as if he did.
npr.org
Let that sink in. 7 out of every 10 school shootings you hear about are outright fucking lies. Imagine how bad some of the other stars that are similarly politically motivated (white terrorist rates anyone) must be.
I know. The fucking splc and ADL numbers on right wing terrorism are absolute bullshit. People who liked right wing memes on faceberg or twitter were put on that list without any motive ever being established.
bump
bump, i need to read this
WAKE THE FUCK UP U.S.
The left has ZERO interest in facts. Now matter how clearly and irrefutably the facts are presented to them, they will simply claim the opposite is true.
They don't "mean well." They intentionally try to destroy every good in the world and promote every kind of degeneracy, perversion, and evil.
They are demons from hell and should be treated as such.
based thread
Saved. Source checks out. I wonder if there's a more recent report -- if there is, I couldn't find it.
School shootings can also include Tyrone and Jamal exchanging crack at the local elementary school at 200 in the morning, and somebody pulls a gun to rob the other.
>9/11 claimed 3000 lives 20 years ago
>car crashes kill 30.000 people a year
according to this logic car crashes are 200 times bigger problem because, golly gee, look at all the dead people. not all deaths are equal and not all crimes are the same. a DUI driver running over two pedestrians would still be considered infinitely less dangerous than an inept terrorist killing a single person, despite the consequences of the DUI driver's crime obviously being more severe. In the same fashion, a black thug shooting up a bunch of other black thugs over a drug deal gone bad, doesn't carry the same weight as when little Timmy goes and shoots up a school, mall, etc.
when was the last time you had a black person commit mass shooting with the specific intent to kill random people who happen to find themselves in a certain location? you could - from memory - list maybe three. four, maybe even ten in the last decade. meanwhile there have been three white mass shooters in the past 10 days.
but obviously the goalposts will be moved because apparently whites can do no wrong, and even when a problem becomes so widespread it turned into a stereotype, it's actually a Jewish conspiracy, aided by reptilian ayys who helped MK ULTRA victims fake the Moon landing
>a DUI driver running over two pedestrians would still be considered infinitely less dangerous than an inept terrorist killing a single person, despite the consequences of the DUI driver's crime obviously being more severe.
...how?
>maybe even ten in the last decade
despite being 13% of the population