Muh 249 mass shootings

The point is the media doesn’t cover it

Why the distinction between gang related shooting and mass shootings? 4 people or more were shot. The distinction only exists so that the media can play up the threat of the radical right wing extremist while downplaying the 13% of the population that commit half of all murders.

right answer

[citation needed]

because gang incidents are isolated incidents, with predetermined targets(rival gangs) and not targeting the public/random people

Because one is common crime while the other is terrorism

Here is a map of the percentage of niggers by state

Attached: 0DCBE195-13CC-4481-8E7D-84E9C85C5E87.png (1200x720, 200K)

so the shootings themselves don't actually matter, it's just the type of person engaging in the shooting that is relevant to you?
if 10 mil gang violence related homicides was the yearly norm, and 10 deaths came from (INSERT IDEOLOGY YOU DISAGREE WITH HERE) radicals, you still think the 10 deaths are more of a problem than the 10 mil related deaths?
fuck off

Banning ayy-arrrrrs won't fix that number.

I love how your image shows "mass shootings" with 4 or more victims are just like shootings in general. Mostly committed by blacks and probably gang related.

Actual "Active Shooter" scenarios where people aim to create mass casualties certainly involve more white dudes. Probably in relation to their presence in society on the whole though.

There isn't that much of a correlation user

>so the shootings themselves don't actually matter, it's just the type of person engaging in the shooting that is relevant to you?
I believe so yeah. Don't get angry, but it's exactly the point of terrorism to be politically relevant
Both are problems but very different kinds of problems

there is no universally agreed upon definition for "mass shooting".

society wants to reinvent the definition to make people automatically think of white male when they hear the words "mass shooting," and their conditioning is working.

Most "mass shootings" of the criteria used, are gang-related and committed by the 13%. They sure love to inflate the number of mass shootings to drum up the anti-gun agenda, but neglect the fact that it's mostly attacks committed by blacks and hispanics as part of gang activity.

Attached: alabamaniggerguitarintroplays.png (626x654, 499K)

Here we see how big differense better education, prison, healthcare, gibbs etc. Make
Though we need no gibrapefugees

Gang incidents are isolated? Mass shootings comprise a whopping 2% of all gun related deaths.

BUT ITS TERRORISM ITS CONVENIENTLY MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN THE OTHER 98% OF GUN RELATED DEATHS!

isolated as in set targets AKA RIVAL FUCKING GANGS NIGGER JESUS FUCK DO I HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT TO YOU?

Niggers commit 50 percent of all murders despite being 13 percent of the population. Is there any correlation between niggers and violent crime or are facts racist?

Attached: BBFB76C4-07F8-4F7C-B7EC-4D0599507098.jpg (881x862, 86K)

Terrorism is more important politically than common crime, that's a fact
If you shoot your wife because she cucked you that's a thing, if you shoot the president that's another. It's still one kill but one is politically motivated

99,o% of homicides done by guns aren't because of gun

The light blue areas in the north-west still have much more homicides than Europe, even the ares with more non-Europeans

Umm that isn't relevant to white supremacy and hateful bigotry, so therefore it isn't important to me.
We. Have. A. White. Male. Problem.

Guess who live in ghettos more?
Most of europe doesn't have as great number of pwople living in poverty as usa

What?

are you saying there is 1 easy step to reduce homecide by firearms by 50%?

walmart shoppers are not US presidents.
hate crimes aren't classed under terrorism.
mass shootings (the minority of them committed by white males) are statistically insignificant to warrant societal action.

>walmart shoppers are not US presidents.
You get the point of my hyperbole.
>hate crimes aren't classed under terrorism.
If you kill soft targets to influence the political choice or public opinion that's pretty much the definition of terrorism

His objective was to kill those random people to illicit some kind of change or response in the government. He didn't kill them for a personal reason or for something like gang activities

Cmon user don't be obtuse on purpose. I'm not saying "ban guns", I'm saying that there is a big difference between "normal" murders or gang shootings and "hate shootings" or however you want to call them

Jesus fuck this damage control.

Attached: 1526869621264.png (1687x1553, 1.22M)

>pretty much
you interpret it as being "close" to the definition of terrorism, even though it's distinct, since you consider it to be close enough, then it is terrorism to you.
i'll tell you right now it will not be charged as terrorism.

>He didn't kill them for a personal reason
i'm sure i can assert that he held personal reasons which motivated him to do this.

> I'm saying that there is a big difference between "normal" murders or gang shootings and "hate shootings" or however you want to call them
we disagree here. this wasn't ISIS making an attack. this was some loser basement fag with a gun.

You're splitting hairs over the different types of gun homicide. The FBI director has said several times, they don't give a shit about ideology, they care about violent crime. If you actually cared about stopping preventable deaths, you wouldn't worry about the minutiae of categorizing all the different reasons for someone to pull the trigger on someone else. But you don't. You care about the mass shootings that comprise 2% of all gun homicides. And all gun homicides pale in comparison to the other leading causes of preventable death that you also don't care about. You're a lefty masquerading as a "sensible gun owner" that reacts to how the media tells you to react.

>you interpret it as being "close" to the definition of terrorism
"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
>i'll tell you right now it will not be charged as terrorism.
Maybe not but that's still terrorism
>i'm sure i can assert that he held personal reasons which motivated him to do this.
Did he know all those people personally?
>we disagree here. this wasn't ISIS making an attack. this was some loser basement fag with a gun.
He was just less organized and alone. How is that different than some ISIS guy mowing down a crowd with a van?

I don't care at all, I'm not even American. I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense to class together with an homicide committed during an home invasion or something and a politically charged homicide

>Maybe not but that's still terrorism
you're allowed to make up whatever definitions you want in your worldview, but they aren't true outside of your own perception.
>Did he know all those people personally?
is he required to know each and every person on an individual basis in order for it to be considered a "legitimate" murder to you?
>How is that different than some ISIS guy mowing down a crowd with a van?
>less organized and alone.
>alone
his group affiliations: infinity chan fag.

note the recent efforts to label infinity chan itself as a terrorist-like organization. this is because people like you want to be able to call this terrorism, when it is not.

>you're allowed to make up whatever definitions you want in your worldview, but they aren't true outside of your own perception.
Let's go with the US definition then: "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"
>is he required to know each and every person on an individual basis in order for it to be considered a "legitimate" murder to you?
Well yeah, unless you have some other kind of issue with them (for example they're members of a rival gang). Those were completely random people during a random day

This list shows that licensing is absolutely justified.

Attached: 90dadabd643b50025d348ed486dd0238.jpg (800x387, 73K)

Statistic is right, they just don't talk about most of them in the media.

Attached: IMG_20190805_072025_015.jpg (890x960, 164K)

>subnational groups or clandestine agents
Which official subnational group or clandestine agency do you purport him to belong to? Gamers? Racists? White* people?

It's basic math. Blacks and spics make up the majority of violent crime offenders in the US. Cut them out of the equation and crime drops like a stone

From his manifesto I'd say "anti-immigration"

The poorest white town in the US still had less crime than the richest black neighborhood

They are right you know.

Thats exactly what most "ISIS" attacks in the west are. They just pledge allegiance before doing their faggot shit. The only difference is claiming affiliation or not.

They live in poverty because they’re niggers, they’re not niggers just because they live in poverty.

The viets have done fine, risen out of poverty in 2 generations or so.

Netherlands here. Upset a terrorist attack gets called a mass shooting.

Attached: 1554443313245.jpg (544x938, 57K)

USA #1 AGAIN MOTHER FUCKERS!
Does anyone else even compete?!?

57pbp

The US has always had a significantly higher murder rate than Europe, going back to the colonial era.

Most of those are drive-bys in Chicago and shit like that, otherwise that'd be 2 mass shootings every day

Arguing that the statistic is flawed because 4 people in your opinion isn't high enough to be called a "mass" shooting just shows how fucking insane you have been driven by this stuff.

This information is a couple years outdated but looks at exactly the question you asked. crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Sorry, but 4 criminals getting tagged during a gang shootout and surviving does not a mass shooting make.

If it were easier to track drugs we could overlay a map of the drug type and distribution in the U.S. and probably see a tighter correlation.

>pic implying Mexico is less dangerous than the US

More statistics

Attached: 1565124620333.png (1366x737, 37K)

Congrats op. You cracked the code.

The media uses mass shooting as anything involving 3+ people. Not even killed or injured. Just 3 people involved. A bunch of sensationalist garbage that ties in gang violence with a problem they completely invented to push an agenda.

it does for liberals.
Also, all their anti gun statistics start at the University of Texas tower shooting in 1966, more than 50 years ago.

it's the nigs
get rid of em and all will be well

Attached: 1565075644957.webm (640x360, 1.18M)

Pretty based

>it does for liberals
then they should do they homework and actually investigate all shootouts in foreign countries to make sure they count the wounded on every single one of those occurrences rather than just putting a "0" next to the countries.

>Mexico: 3
Yeah fucking right.

Gang shootings often occur in public places. Regardless of the target, bystanders get shot.
Common crime seems to kill more than terrorism. Seems like terrorism isn’t actually a major problem.

>Common crime seems to kill more than terrorism. Seems like terrorism isn’t actually a major problem.
And more people die every year of car crashes and strokes than both. Does it mean you can just ignore violent crimes?

So you don't actually care about deaths at all

The political shootings wouldn't happen if people weren't getting pissed off about the gangs and drugs.

No of course I don't, I don't even know those people

>Highest number is a little above 10 per capita
I can live with this. That's low enough. We should try to do better but in a numbers sense it's not a huge issue.

>US crime would be 56% lower with the demographics of Europe
That would still make for a crime rate twice as high as western Europe's.

White people are also affected by black crime.

Blacks make up the majority of crime. Majority if that is black on black.

And whites are much more likely to be victimized.

Hence why removing them drops the US down to pre-migration Sweden tier.

They cherry-pick word too. Like how they always use the word "shootings" instead of homicide of violent crime. So they're basically implying that every other country is fine, with totally no problems whatsoever (bullshit).

Typical propaganda tactic that goes back to the Axis dictatorships of WW2.
>hurr durr the polish attacked us first, guise

Wow, what an incredible comparison.

>developed nation
My rebuttal is that homicides still happen, even in European countries. And there's a psychological reason for that. Kind of like why Brazil or Mexico have more homicides, despite having less guns.

And that's the difference between a developed and developing nation. It's the cultural mindset of Egoism versus Service.

Kill yourself you board tourist nigger loving faggot

Thanks, m8. Dishonesty has always been a pet peeve of mine.

Its because niggers are subhuman apes that need to be genocided.

>Mexico
>3

Attached: 1549681715738.jpg (320x454, 74K)

One more thing I'll note is Austria. Their gun laws are also lax. Not as much as neighboring Switzerland, but enough to where a civilian can buy certain shotguns without excessive scrutiny or stereotyping.

Czech Republic and New Hampshire are also in the low end, ironically.

Can swiss keep ammo in their homes? a bunch of anti gun fags keep repeating this but I thought it was only government ammo that had to be stored at the range, or is it all ammo?

Only government

Go back to redd*t, nigger

Is there a limit to the amount? So most private owners keep their stuff locked up at home?

Are you blind?