Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-13-2019, 06:24 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,004

Why does the media portray mass shooters as mostly white men?


TIL that a majority of mass shooters are black. I was genuinely shocked. Is this being largely ignored by the media out of political correctness, or because of a lack of concern for black victims?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/u...-violence.html

Last edited by SlackerInc; 07-13-2019 at 06:25 PM.
  #2  
Old 07-13-2019, 06:35 PM
mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,496
cant read NYT. Can you summarize?

mc
  #3  
Old 07-13-2019, 06:48 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
cant read NYT. Can you summarize?

mc

How about some excerpts?


Quote:
Seeking deeper insight into the phenomenon, The New York Times identified and analyzed these 358 shootings with four or more casualties, drawing on two databases assembled from news reports and citizen contributors, and then verifying details with law enforcement agencies.[...]

Where motives could be gleaned, roughly half involved or suggested crime or gang activity. Arguments that spun out of control accounted for most other shootings, followed by acts of domestic violence.[...]

Over all, though, nearly three-fourths of victims and suspected assailants whose race could be identified were black. Some experts suggest that helps explain why the drumbeat of dead and wounded does not inspire more outrage.
“Clearly, if it’s black-on-black, we don’t get the same attention because most people don’t identify with that. Most Americans are white,” said James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University in Boston. “People think, ‘That’s not my world. That’s not going to happen to me.’ ”[...]

About a third were provoked by arguments, typically drug- or alcohol-fueled, often over petty grievances.[...]

Another third of the 358 cases — and the most common in cities with more than 250,000 residents — were either gang-related or were drive-by shootings typical of gangs.
But the police and prosecutors say many of those were not directly linked to criminal activity, such as a dispute over a drug deal. More often, a minor dust-up — a boast, an insult, a decision to play basketball on another gang’s favorite court — was taken as a sign of disrespect and answered with a bullet, said Andrew V. Papachristos, a Yale University professor who studies gang behavior.

Over all, two-thirds of shootings took place outdoors, endangering innocent people. More than 100 bystanders, from toddlers to grandparents, were injured or killed.[...]

Ali-Rashid Abdullah, 67 and broad-shouldered with a neatly trimmed gray beard, is an ex-convict turned outreach worker for Cincinnati’s Human Relations Commission. He or his co-workers were at the scenes of all five of Cincinnati’s shootings with four or more casualties last year, working the crowds outside the yellow police tape, trying to defuse the potential for further gunfire.
They see themselves as stop signs for young black men bound for self-destruction. They also see themselves as truth-tellers about the intersection of race and gun violence — a topic that neither the city’s mayor, who is white, nor its police chief, who is black, publicly addresses.
“White folks don’t want to say it because it’s politically incorrect, and black folks don’t know how to deal with it because it is their children pulling the trigger as well as being shot,” said Mr. Abdullah, who is black.
  #4  
Old 07-13-2019, 06:53 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,523
There is a huge difference between mass shooters and gang violence, which seems to be what your article is describing. I suggest this is why blacks are not associated with mass shootings in the media and in social perception.
  #5  
Old 07-13-2019, 06:58 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
There is a huge difference between mass shooters and gang violence, which seems to be what your article is describing. I suggest this is why blacks are not associated with mass shootings in the media and in social perception.
That's right. "Mass shooter" evokes the guy in the Las Vegas hotel window, shooting down at concert-goers, or the disgruntled worker, working his way through his office building.

And those have overwhelmingly been white guys.
  #6  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:01 PM
mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,496
Without having read the NYT article; I can say, it depends on how you define mass murder. This article from the Center for Inquiry says

Quote:
. . . there are different types of mass shootings. One recent analysis by Emma Fridel in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence (discussed in more depth later) identified the three most common types of mass shootings: Family killings, felony killings, and public mass killings.

Quote:
Familicides represent the most common form of mass murder and are principally defined by a close victim-offender relationship. Perpetrators are typically White, middle-aged males who target their spouse or intimate partner, children, and other relatives (Fridel 2017, 3).
Felony killings are distinguished by motive. Murder is used to achieve some primary criminal objective, typically involving financial gain. … Due to their general lack of sensationalism, felony killings are not widely publicized despite representing the second largest category of mass murder. Perpetrators of felony mass murders tend to be young black or Hispanic males with extensive criminal records (Fridel 2017, 7).
Despite their extreme visibility, public mass killings account for the smallest proportion of all mass murders. Formally, these incidents are defined by attack location. Public mass killers are a heterogeneous group and are frequently delineated into several subtypes. Public murderers are often stereotyped as middle-aged white men who have suffered a series of failures in different areas of life, though some research indicates a disproportionate number of immigrants commit public massacres (Fridel 2017, 5). These public mass shootings are what most people (wrongly) consider as typical of mass shootings.
So, I think you may be on to something. The mass murders that seem to catch the public's eye and thus more media attention are the ones that seem random and therefore more sensational, and are committed more often by whites. Felony mass murders do get plenty of attention, however, they just seem to be viewed as a part of the crime problem that seems to be plaguing this country. Not a separate and sensational outlier.

mc
  #7  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:03 PM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,033
Here's a long article that's not paywalled.

Quote:
Just as there are differing definitions of mass shootings, there are different types of mass shootings. One recent analysis by Emma Fridel in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence (discussed in more depth later) identified the three most common types of mass shootings: Family killings, felony killings, and public mass killings.
My reading of the article above acknowledges that yes, black people are responsible for most 'mass killings' but they come under the category of felony killings. Total mass killings by blacks are 37% (family, felony and public)

White people are more highly represented in the family and public killings, and are responsible for 40.06% (family, felony and public combined).

Last edited by kambuckta; 07-13-2019 at 07:05 PM. Reason: Damn you mike: pipped at the post.
  #8  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:04 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,520
This is not an analysis of what most people would describe as "mass shooters", which I think are incidents with more deaths. The NYT looked at 358 shooting incidents in 2015 where there were 4 or more casualties (not deaths), including the initiating shooter (462 dead, 1330 injured).

Quote:
...The shootings took place everywhere, but mostly outdoors...Where motives could be gleaned, roughly half involved or suggested crime or gang activity...The typical victim was a man between 18 and 30...average age was 27...Most of the shootings occurred in economically downtrodden neighborhoods...39 domestic violence shootings, and they largely involved white attackers and victims. So did many of the high-profile massacres...Over all, though, nearly three-fourths of victims and suspected assailants whose race could be identified were black
  #9  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:07 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,991
The relatively recent "mass shooting" phenomena typically refers to the mass killings done for reasons of ideology or rage at society (or some aspect of society). Not gang violence.
  #10  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:07 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,004
MC, look at my excerpts. Most of the killings are classified as not being part of a crime but rather are ginned up by arguments and perception of petty slights, fueled in part by social media.
  #11  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:07 PM
mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
That's right. "Mass shooter" evokes the guy in the Las Vegas hotel window, shooting down at concert-goers, or the disgruntled worker, working his way through his office building.

And those have overwhelmingly been white guys.
Not overwhelmingly. from that same article i quoted
Its 49% white to 31% black for public shootings.

mc
  #12  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:12 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The relatively recent "mass shooting" phenomena typically refers to the mass killings done for reasons of ideology or rage at society (or some aspect of society). Not gang violence.

You seem to be cherrypicking criteria to keep the mass shooter profile white. If a mass shooter belonged to the KKK, would you also not count it?

And only a third of these shootings were associated with gangs anyway.
  #13  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:13 PM
mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,496
SlackerInc I think both our cites are saying primarily the same thing.
I'm on my way out the door so I cant continue this debate right now, sorry. i'll check back later.

mc
  #14  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:14 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
Not overwhelmingly. from that same article i quoted
Its 49% white to 31% black for public shootings.

mc

And even there, the black shooters are nearly three times the proportion that African Americans make up of the overall population.
  #15  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:21 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You seem to be cherrypicking criteria to keep the mass shooter profile white. If a mass shooter belonged to the KKK, would you also not count it?

And only a third of these shootings were associated with gangs anyway.
KKK/white supremacists mass shooters act for ideology -- which was one of the categories in my post. That's different than street crime (which includes but is not limited to gang violence -- I shouldn't have limited it to gangs).

Street crime has always been around. There's nothing new about those shootings. The "new" type of shooting (which isn't exactly new but has become far more common in the last 20 years or so) isn't for reasons of crime (personal gain, or covering up for personal gain, or reprisal killings associated with criminal activity, etc.), but for reasons of rage at society -- for ideological reasons, or for some feeling of personal aggrievement, or both.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-13-2019 at 07:25 PM.
  #16  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:23 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You seem to be cherrypicking criteria to keep the mass shooter profile white.
You're the one who introduced the "mass shooter" concept without defining it precisely; and then linked to an article that notably does not use the term, since it is not analyzing what most people think of as "mass" shootings. Leading to many responses questioning that aspect of your OP - that's entirely on you.

Nobody's denying that a disproportionate number of black people are the perpetrators and victims of gun violence overall. So what, exactly, is your point?

Last edited by Riemann; 07-13-2019 at 07:25 PM.
  #17  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:37 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,991
This really shouldn't be surprising. Sad as they are, and sad as it is, street crime killings, even with multiple victims, are not usually considered big news. "Mass shootings" -- this relatively new phenomena (in frequency) that is generally an angry young male outcast shooting a bunch of people (sometimes strangers or sometimes school/work acquaintances), either for ideological reasons (race/ethnic/etc. hatred) or for personal feelings of grievance, or both (like incels), are big news (though a lot less big than 20 years ago, considering their frequency).

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-13-2019 at 07:38 PM.
  #18  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:42 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This really shouldn't be surprising...
It's analogous to occasional airplane crashes being big news, while a vastly greater number of car crashes go unreported precisely because they are so common; while the latter kill far more people in aggregate.
  #19  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:45 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,991
Further -- it's big news, I think, because it's so pointless. There's no obvious reason for it -- no drugs/money/valuables to steal, or rival gang to intimidate, or witnesses to silence... just white-hot, unfocused but murderous rage. It doesn't make much sense, but it's devastatingly harmful. That's going to get a lot more attention that killings for much more mundane and intuitively understandable (if not justified) reasons, because things we don't understand are scarier than things we do.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-13-2019 at 07:46 PM.
  #20  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:49 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 569
What does the OP think is the reason? Surely they have one if they started this topic. Is it PC gone wild?
  #21  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:55 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,991
Even if the media had some "PC" inclinations (or whatever), does the OP really think that this would override their financial and profit-seeking motivation? That doesn't sound credible. They put out the stories they think will best help their bottom line, broadly speaking. Ideological/rage-based mass shootings are bigger news than street-crime shootings, because they're scarier, and fear sells papers/gets viewers/clicks.
  #22  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:56 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Nobody's denying that a disproportionate number of black people are the perpetrators and victims of gun violence overall. So what, exactly, is your point?
I'm wondering about the point myself. I would certainly reject any notion of media conspiracy or "political correctness" that suppresses information.

In addition to what's already been said about definitions of "mass shooting" and so on, I think the operative factors here are simply these. First, there are such an enormous number of multiple-fatality gun homicides in the US that the media tends to report only the most sensational ones, and the perps in those have tended to primarily be white. In fact, even the sensational mass shootings often get fairly minimal coverage, like "ho-hum, another mass shooting, another day in America". So everyday shootings in poor black neighborhoods, whether gang-related or not, are not even going to make it to any significant level of coverage at all.

Secondly, your conjecture about "lack of concern for black victims" is not really quite on point. The relative disregard for gun violence in poor black neighborhoods is probably well described by this quote from the article: "People think, 'That's not my world. That's not going to happen to me'." I think it would be much the same if the poor neighborhoods were white, too. It's not a black vs. white issue as much as it is an issue of two different worlds defined by economic strata.

I'm not claiming that racism doesn't exist, because it clearly does. I just don't think it's any kind of factor at all in how mass shootings are being reported.
  #23  
Old 07-13-2019, 08:05 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,545
As other people have pointed out, it's all in how you define "mass shooter". The key is right there in the OP's quoted article:
Quote:
Where motives could be gleaned, roughly half involved or suggested crime or gang activity. Arguments that spun out of control accounted for most other shootings, followed by acts of domestic violence.
Crime and gang activity are not what most people think of in the context of "mass shooting", although if you're defining that concept by the criterion "shootings with four or more casualties", then of course they count. Same for escalating arguments and domestic violence.

But what most people think of as a "mass shooting" is a terroristic-type incident where a shooter deliberately and with premeditation slaughters as many random people (frequently complete strangers) as possible, frequently to emphasize some kind of supposed ideological point.

And that particular kind of mass shooting, at least in the US, is indeed dominated by white male perpetrators. And it's also the kind that gets the most public attention, because people are not particularly shocked at bloodshed within criminal organizations or gangs, but are extremely shocked by the relatively quite rare occurrence of large numbers of unconnected innocent victims getting mowed down in cold blood by a killer with some kind of general grudge against the world.

I'm surprised the OP wasn't already aware of that, tbh.
  #24  
Old 07-13-2019, 08:07 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
... the black shooters are nearly three times the proportion that African Americans make up of the overall population.
*falls off of turnip truck*
Oh, I see what you're trying to say here. If you could have stated it a bit more deliberately in the OP you could have saved this naive rube a lot of head scratching.
  #25  
Old 07-13-2019, 08:21 PM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You seem to be cherrypicking criteria to keep the mass shooter profile white. If a mass shooter belonged to the KKK, would you also not count it?

And only a third of these shootings were associated with gangs anyway.
You have to start with a definition of "mass shooting" . The NYT article acknowledges that the shootings they looked at did not fit the common definition of "mass shooting" even in term of the number of deaths.

Quote:
Four or more casualties is a far broader measure than “mass shootings,” which are commonly defined as the killing of at least four people, not including the attacker.
Even using the NYT definition, there's room for quibbling over what the definition should include- suppose someone shoots up the BBQ but only hits three people. It doesn't count under the NYT definition, just like the shooting where four people are injured but only one dies doesn't fit under the other definitions.


If you're doing research in an attempt to find solutions, you want to break things down into categories that make sense. You can't necessarily treat all shootings that leave four people or more people dead the same way because they didn't all have the same reasons and won't all have the same solutions - IOW , the steps you take to prevent someone from shooting up a car over a parking spot are not necessarily the same steps you take to keep someone from shooting and killing his family which are not necessarily the same steps you take to keep rival gang members from from shooting at each other and hitting other people in the crossfire which are not necessarily the same steps to keep someone from shooting up a school or a concert venue full of people who have nothing specifically to do with the shooter's grievances. And once the researchers have come up with definitions, that what the media are going to use. There's nothing to prevent he media from doing their own analysis and using a different definition just as the NYT did here, but they usually don't.



Oh and journalists need to do a better job of explaining to readers. ( or maybe they reporters don't fully understand themselves). I have read hundreds of times that mass shooters are predominantly white ( true if predominantly means more than half) and that most mass shooters are white (also true) But somehow, when people read that, it turns into 'almost always white" (which is not true) and the articles almost never mention that whites are not over-represented as the perpetrators of mass-shooting. If 70% of mass shooters are white, and 70% of the population is white, that's not disproportionate.
  #26  
Old 07-13-2019, 08:42 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
I have read hundreds of times that mass shooters are predominantly white ( true if predominantly means more than half) and that most mass shooters are white (also true) But somehow, when people read that, it turns into 'almost always white" (which is not true) and the articles almost never mention that whites are not over-represented as the perpetrators of mass-shooting. If 70% of mass shooters are white, and 70% of the population is white, that's not disproportionate.
True, but IIRC the sort of statements I tend to see are to the effect that mass shooters are disproportionately white males. Since almost all mass shooters are men and less than half the population is men, such statements are technically true.
  #27  
Old 07-14-2019, 12:12 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You seem to be cherrypicking criteria to keep the mass shooter profile white. If a mass shooter belonged to the KKK, would you also not count it?
If said Klansman were pissed off at Cletus because Cletus stole his girl, so he sprayed a gun through Cletus's doublewide, or if said Klansman were robbing Joe's meth lab and wounded a handful of guys working there, or if said Klansman were getting revenge on Billy's whole family because Billy's nephew killed the Klansman's right-hand man, then fuck no I wouldn't treat it as a mass shooting.

But if said Klansman went to a black church and murdered nine churchgoers because he hated black people, of course I'd count it, just as I'd count it if a New Black Panther guy went to a white church and did the same thing.

It beggars the imagination that you're not seeing the difference between what's typically called a "mass shooting" and the "four or more casualties" definition used in the NYT article.

o wait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New York Times
Four or more casualties is a far broader measure than “mass shootings,” which are commonly defined as the killing of at least four people, not including the attacker.
It's super-interesting how you changed the claim made by the NYT article to one explicitly not made, but left that out of your snippets.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 07-14-2019 at 12:12 AM.
  #28  
Old 07-14-2019, 12:15 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,004
Good points, doreen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Street crime has always been around. There's nothing new about those shootings. The "new" type of shooting (which isn't exactly new but has become far more common in the last 20 years or so) isn't for reasons of crime (personal gain, or covering up for personal gain, or reprisal killings associated with criminal activity, etc.), but for reasons of rage at society -- for ideological reasons, or for some feeling of personal aggrievement, or both.

But Andy, you are ignoring that the article clearly stated that most of these shootings are not connected with any kind of underlying crime. It’s being angry over a rival gang playing basketball on their turf, or a stupid argument that escalates to deadly violence.
  #29  
Old 07-14-2019, 12:46 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Good points, doreen.





But Andy, you are ignoring that the article clearly stated that most of these shootings are not connected with any kind of underlying crime. It’s being angry over a rival gang playing basketball on their turf, or a stupid argument that escalates to deadly violence.
So you believe that these shootings are more related to ideology rather than criminal enterprises?
  #30  
Old 07-14-2019, 01:26 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,463
The difference in gang violence and mass shootings is that the gang violence is a group of people killing other people, while a mass shooting is one (or a really small number) of people killing as many people as they can. Even if only a few people in the gang do the shooting, they are doing it on behalf of the gang, and their intended targets are people of another gang.

A mass shooter shoots the general masses. They go to a highly populated place and try to kill as many people as they can. Not because they have some problem with those people in particular. The point of the mass shooting is to terrorize the masses.

The victims of gang violence are mostly gang members--i.e. people the public doesn't give a shit about. They may even be happy they are dead. The victims of a mass shooting are predominantly innocent people.

So not only are they different situations, one is more interesting to the public than the other, and so one sells newspapers while the other doesn't. Or, to be less cynical, one actually affects the general public more, and thus more people want to know about it.
  #31  
Old 07-14-2019, 04:21 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
most of these shootings are not connected with any kind of underlying crime. It’s being angry over a rival gang playing basketball on their turf
How is turf war "not connected" to underlying crime? Today they're playing basketball, tomorrow they're selling on your corner - they need to be put in their place now. Do you not grok how gangs work?
  #32  
Old 07-14-2019, 06:03 AM
road_lobo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 139
Media is plural: "Why do the media..."

Mass shooter is a vague concept. See the wikipedia entry for "spree killer" for examples of definitional plurality.

From the wikipedia entry on serial killers:

'In a 2005 article Anthony Walsh, professor of criminal justice at Boise State University, argued a review of post-WWII serial killings in America finds that the prevalence of minority serial killers has typically been drastically underestimated in both professional research literature and the mass media. As a paradigmatic case of this media double standard, Walsh cites news reporting on white killer Gary Heidnik and African-American killer Harrison Graham. Both men were residents of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; both imprisoned, tortured, and killed several women; and both were arrested only months apart in 1987. "Heidnik received widespread national attention, became the subject of books and television shows, and served as a model for the fictitious Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs", writes Walsh, while "Graham received virtually no media attention outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, despite having been convicted of four more murders than Heidnik".'
  #33  
Old 07-14-2019, 06:26 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Good points, doreen.





But Andy, you are ignoring that the article clearly stated that most of these shootings are not connected with any kind of underlying crime. It’s being angry over a rival gang playing basketball on their turf, or a stupid argument that escalates to deadly violence.
Turf wars are always related to criminal activity. Are you really unaware of this? Do you think the "turf" being fought over is not about selling drugs or other criminal money-making activity? And "stupid arguments" that escalate are also likely to be related to gang rivalry and similar phenomena, and further, aren't anything new in terms of frequency. Rage/ideological shootings are something new, in terms of being frequent. They're less understandable, and thus scarier.

What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
  #34  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:15 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,151
While the OP does a perfectly terrible job of laying out any problem, both misrepresenting its cite and then poisoning the well, there is an actual problem hinted at here. Okay, an actual problem EXPLICITLY DESCRIBED by the cite.

The problem is that mass shootings suck all the oxygen out of the conversation about gun violence. They're horrifyingly common, but other sorts of gun violence are even more horrifyingly common. And the other sort tends to affect people of color disproportionately; and when we're talking about gun violence, we need to be sure we're not leaving out conversations about this other kind of violence.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 07-14-2019 at 07:15 AM.
  #35  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:18 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,004
Andy, Dibble, pay attention. I am going to remind you of a couple excerpts I already posted and add one I left out earlier:


Quote:
There are 358 reasons for those 358 shootings, though some remain a mystery; in about a fourth of the cases, investigators have discerned no motive.
As for the rest, some patterns stand out. The fewest occurred while another felony, such as a burglary, was underway. Domestic violence shootings were nearly as infrequent, but were among the deadliest.[...]

About a third were provoked by arguments, typically drug- or alcohol-fueled, often over petty grievances.

Another third of the 358 cases — and the most common in cities with more than 250,000 residents — were either gang-related or were drive-by shootings typical of gangs.

But the police and prosecutors say many of those were not directly linked to criminal activity, such as a dispute over a drug deal. More often, a minor dust-up — a boast, an insult, a decision to play basketball on another gang’s favorite court — was taken as a sign of disrespect and answered with a bullet, said Andrew V. Papachristos, a Yale University professor who studies gang behavior.
So what you are trying to claim is sooo obvious is actually diametrically opposed to the narrative these three New York Times writers are presenting, with the assistance of an Ivy league criminologist.
  #36  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:21 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Andy, Dibble, pay attention. I am going to remind you of a couple excerpts I already posted and add one I left out earlier:

So what you are trying to claim is sooo obvious is actually diametrically opposed to the narrative these three New York Times writers are presenting, with the assistance of an Ivy league criminologist.
This doesn't dispute anything I said. Normally, if you want to say that someone is wrong, you'll quote the part of their post you think is wrong. What part of what I have said do you believe is incorrect?

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-14-2019 at 07:22 AM.
  #37  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:27 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,991
TNC has talked extensively about the inner-city culture he grew up in, which developed as a way to survive in extremely difficult and even desperate conditions, in which things like "respect" and having a tough image were vital to survival. That meant being willing and ready to engage in physical violence against any perceived threats to image, respect, and honor, at any time, to avoid being seen as a "punk" or other undesirable type, since to be identified as such was to invite further violence and victimization. That is nothing new (and such conditions are closely linked to honor-based cultures around the world), and is indirectly related to lots of street crime, as well as being a demonstration of the toxicity of the conditions that poor areas are forced into due to institutional discrimination (which is a whole 'nother thread, and one that has been extensively debated in various ways on this board).

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-14-2019 at 07:28 AM.
  #38  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:28 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,004
Not gonna bite. It’s clear from what I posted that you are reading strongly against the grain of the article and spinning furiously. Unless these reporters and experts are lying to us, it’s pretty clear that most of these killings are over petty bullshit. And the people engaging in this violence are so uncaring they make no effort to avoid spraying bullets into innocent bystanders, including children.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 07-14-2019 at 07:29 AM.
  #39  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:30 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Not gonna bite. It’s clear from what I posted that you are reading strongly against the grain of the article and spinning furiously. Unless these reporters and experts are lying to us, it’s pretty clear that most of these killings are over has the most sense. And the people engaging in this violence are so uncaring they take no make no effort to avoid spraying bullets into innocent bystanders, including children.
None of this actually addresses anything I've said (though I can't understand your third sentence). You don't appear to be trying to engage in actual debate and discussion here. What have I said that you disagree with? How am I supposed to respond if you won't say what you think I've said that's incorrect?

You asked a question in the OP and I'm attempting to answer it.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-14-2019 at 07:32 AM.
  #40  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:33 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,004
Using voice to text, didn’t catch that flub until a minute later. Edited now.
  #41  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:38 AM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So what you are trying to claim is sooo obvious is actually diametrically opposed to the narrative these three New York Times writers are presenting, with the assistance of an Ivy league criminologist.
Quote:
But the police and prosecutors say many of those were not directly linked to criminal activity, such as a dispute over a drug deal. More often, a minor dust-up — a boast, an insult, a decision to play basketball on another gang’s favorite court — was taken as a sign of disrespect and answered with a bullet, said Andrew V. Papachristos, a Yale University professor who studies gang behavior.
"Not directly linked to criminal activity" doesn't mean "unrelated to criminal activity". It is uncommon, if not unheard of, for non-gang members to shoot people for using the wrong basketball court.

Last edited by doreen; 07-14-2019 at 07:41 AM.
  #42  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:40 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,151
Not only does TNC talk about how difficult, desperate conditions can lead to an honor culture that's really violent, Steven Pinker talks about it (either in The Blank Slate or Better Angels). C'mon, man, you LOVE Pinker!

When you lack a strong police force, Pinker argues, a police force that effectively monopolizes violence, people end up having to protect themselves from violence; and a very effective way to do so is to overreact to slights, so that people don't look on you as easy pickings. He argues that the same dynamic you saw in 19th century backwoods Appalachia, or 18th century Scottish Highlands, shows up in 21st century urban America.
  #43  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:41 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,004
Did you read the article and all of the detailed, reported accounts they used to flesh out the data? I can’t quote everything here, but they are illuminating.
  #44  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:47 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,004
As Pinker noted recently for a special Harvard project, an important underreported fact is that black people are no more likely to be killed by police without reasonable justification than white people are. You will often hear this from the right. But what the right fails to grapple with is that too many police are fucked up about how easily they shoot people regardless of race.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 07-14-2019 at 07:48 AM.
  #45  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:50 AM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
TNC has talked extensively about the inner-city culture he grew up in, which developed as a way to survive in extremely difficult and even desperate conditions, in which things like "respect" and having a tough image were vital to survival.
Maybe I'm just having a senior moment, but who is TNC?
  #46  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:52 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
As Pinker noted recently for a special Harvard project, an important underreported fact is that black people are no more likely to be killed by police without reasonable justification than white people are.
Thread drift, not following.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
Maybe I'm just having a senior moment, but who is TNC?
Ta-Nehisi Coates
  #47  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:52 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
Maybe I'm just having a senior moment, but who is TNC?
Ta-Nehisi Coates.
  #48  
Old 07-14-2019, 08:56 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Andy, Dibble, pay attention. I am going to remind you of a couple excerpts I already posted and add one I left out earlier:
So what you are trying to claim is sooo obvious is actually diametrically opposed to the narrative these three New York Times writers are presenting, with the assistance of an Ivy league criminologist.
"Not directly related to criminal activity" is not the same as "not connected with any kind of underlying crime" because of that weasel-word "directly".

Please, tell me how a turf dispute is not related to criminal activity. Do you believe gangs control turf just for shits and giggles?
  #49  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:26 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,004
So if you were NYT editor, you would have sent the story back for a rewrite?
  #50  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:55 AM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 569
If the OP is so concerned I hear there is an online publication which focuses a lot on BLACK CRIME. Perhaps they can help answer this riddle.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017