I’m guessing you’ve never been to Chicago? Why don’t you shut up about my city. I’m so sick of people bringing up Chicago as if that somehow means mass shootings are not a problem.
As of July 1st Chicago shootings are at a 4 year low for the 1st 6 months of the year. And overall crime rates are down 9% from last year. Find another city to shit on please.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/7/1/20676793/chicago-shootings-four-year-low-through-first-half-of-2019-police-crime-stats
This attempt to change the topic is as weak as saying that 9/11 wasn’t a big deal compared to the many thousands of people killed in US aviation disasters since the invention of commercial flight.
Apples and oranges.
There are many kinds of gun violence: domestic violence, gang shootouts, liquor store holdups, suicide, accidents, mass shootings of random strangers. All of them tragic; all of them would benefit from tighter gun laws.
The last of those, though, is what grabs the national psyche, because of its random and capricious nature. Since I don’t have a gun in my house and I’m not a gang member or drug dealer, the chances of me dying from a firearm are virtually nil…except that I can’t be sure I won’t be shot in a movie theater by some random psycho.
However, we see a lot of intentional whatabouttism to deflect the discussion away from gun controls and white nationalism. Look at any online article and see how many “what about the 50 people killed in Chicago?” comments there are, in a deliberate attempt to muddy the conversation.
The technical term from Trump’s tactic is stochastic terrorism:
stochastic terrorism (noun) the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted.
The lone-wolf attack was apparently influenced by the rhetoric of stochastic terrorism.
You accusing me of handwaving is rich. :rolleyes: All you have to offer is “just so “ stories about the white male patriarchy, unmoored from data.
You do know that just because you’ve not bothered to educate yourself does not indicate a lack of available information on the subject, right?
White men being in charge of most things, far beyond their representation, doesn’t count as data to Slacker, apparently. Perhaps this is related to his belief in the inherent genetic intellectual superiority of northern Europeans (a group for which he just so happens to be a member)?
That you find it more interesting and newsworthy when white men engage in shootings with four or more casualties does not change the fact that black men are ten times as likely to engage in them relative to their proportion of the population.
(That doesn’t change the fact that we currently have a bigoted white man as president who seems bent on inciting a race war, and the one time we had a black man as president, he did anything but.)
I’ve said nothing about what I find interesting or news worthy. Stormfront would probably be preferable to you if you just want to find ways to characterize statistics in a way that reflects as poorly on black people as possible.
I think the “good guy with a gun” myth should be officially dead now. Parkland (MSD High School) had an armed security guard, who was utterly useless. El Paso was in a gun-loving state with open carry laws, filled with potential “good guys” who, according to the fantasy, would have stopped the shooter. Nada.
Dayton: fortunately, armed police were in the vicinity and took out the shooter in 24 seconds. They could not have responded any quicker – but not quick enough for the 9 people killed.
More guns is not the answer.
I repeat, it doesn’t make a fuck’s worth of difference what color the man is–men are responsible for most of the violence, shootings, beatings, crimes and general assholishness. Half of all female homicide victims are killed by their male partners. MEN are the problem. White men, black men, brown men, doesn’t make much difference, MEN are the violent ones who need to knock that shit off or be made to knock it off.
I mean, if we simply made it illegal for men to have or use firearms the problem would be solved in fairly short order. We wouldn’t have cops or armies but at this point I’m thinking it’s a pretty worthy experiment.
ORLY? :dubious:
If that isn’t clear enough, I am sure I can prove my point even better with citations from the other thread. Just say the word. (Also, you continue to insist that those shootings are crime/turf/gang-based, when the article clearly said a large number of them were not.)
Izzat right? You think my excoriation of Trump and his tweets, or my lionization of Barack Obama and Kamala Harris, would be a good fit there? :rolleyes:
It’s interesting that your definition of “how not to be a Nazi” includes suppression of factual data. This is clearly what De Blasio thought, and what that black activist was calling out, but then as I say you can get hit from the other side by being accused of ignoring a big problem among the black community. It really shows why it’s important to just be honest about the data, and let the chips fall where they may.
ETA: SmartAleq, I agreed with you about men—I suspect testosterone is a huge factor here—but then you immediately came back with how it’s nothing fundamentally about men but just about white male patriarchy. You are all over the map.
I didn’t say I think it’s necessarily more newsworthy, I said it’s seen as more newsworthy. That’s not about me, that’s about society. I’m trying to explain why society treats these other shootings in a different way.
Same basket – shooting people they know because of personal grievance, often related to crime/turf/gangs/etc. Nothing new there, nothing “out of the ordinary” in terms of violence.
That part wouldn’t, but your northern-European supremacist notions of intrinsically higher intelligence, and inferior black intelligence, would be more than welcome. You might be a nice guy, but you’re a white supremacist nice guy, by your posts. A white supremacists who wants to help people you see as inferior, rather than harm them… but still a white supremacist. The patriarchal, colonialist flavor of white supremacist – you certainly would have been welcome in 19th century British-controlled India or parts of Africa.
I am being honest about the data – I’m just not using it in a way aimed at upholding and supporting white supremacist notions.
Your white supremacy poisons everything. Like most white supremacists, you’re entirely blind to it. It’s one of the ways bigotry is so destructive – it can turn otherwise decent people into those capable of supporting and spreading monstrous notions.
Which is completely at odds with a place like Stormfront. So that was just a lazy and bogus potshot.
Yes, like the part where I was born. I have already been clear that I think those sorts of colonialists have been unfairly demonized. The places they colonized would have been better off to follow the path of somewhere like Canada rather than the path of Haiti. They were so eager for self rule they threw the baby out with the bathwater.
I was reading an article on Snopes earlier today, discussing the statistics on mass shootings and how different groups have different ways to define them.
Relevant to your comment, Snopes reported that when Mother Jones began compiling statistics they specifically excluded “incidents that may stem from crimes, such as armed robbery or gang violence”.
By contrast, when ABC News compiles their own statistics, they did not exclude such crimes.
So it’s not just in your mind that there is a difference.
It’s not something “fundamentally about men,” because the vast majority of men, in spite of their patriarchal programming, manage to temper those messages with sense and realize there’s a problem with the messages they’ve been given from birth. They resist behaving as though they are inherently entitled to be fucking savages towards other people based on their perceived higher status. This is because most people are not assholes. Generally. Get them stressed and their indoctrination will tend to show more.
You will also notice that I said nothing about “white male patriarchy” I said PATRIARCHY. Our particular form of patriarchy puts white men at the tippy top of the pyramid. Other men are lesser men in our form of patriarchy but are still privileged above women of their own race. We have a dichotomy because we are a patriarchal society while also being a profoundly racist society–both of these things are systemic and operate congruently. How congruently is dependent on where you fall in the two hierarchies and how much you buy into what the patriarchal messages tell you about people in your specific set of classifications.
Your inability and/or unwillingness to educate yourself regarding the very real societal systems we live and operate under does not change the nature of these systems–it just tends to highlight your own prejudices and lack of understanding.
No, it’s only partially at odds with them. Lazy potshot, sure, but not bogus. You’re a white supremacist – just one of the friendlier types.
The Haitians were eager to not be slaves any more. When the choice is violent revolution or continued mass-rape and death-by-work at 30 (if not long before from tropical disease), then humans are likely to choose violent revolution.
Thank you for the link.
Try as I might, I cannot get the 75% figure to comport with the analysis of the Fridel paper. The only major difference I can see between the stated methodologies is that Fridel excludes spree killings and includes non-firearm murders. She breaks down the data enough, though, that one can see this does not account for the difference.
This is why I say you are all over the map. You just wrote a post about how maybe we should take away guns from all men! (And then, BTW, you made the casually sexist suggestion that this would somehow make it impossible to have police or military.)
FFS, do you have a memory condition like that guy in “Memento”?
That you didn’t use the phrase “white male patriarchy” doesn’t make my paraphrase inaccurate.
You would like to think I am ignorant—that simplifies things for you. The reality is that I grew up in a household where I was inculcated with all this stuff: my mother was a professor of sociology and my father a professor of anthropology. I devoured the books on their bookshelves. When I met my current wife, she was working on a sociology Ph.D. at a Research 1 university. I also devoured her seminar readings. I always felt this stuff elided some obvious truths, so it was a revelation to read Pinker’s devastating takedown of what he calls the Standard Social Science Model or SSSM.
So the reality is that I am very well versed in these theories—and I see right through them.
You’re welcome.
I believe the NYT analysis is just for the most recent year with data. True also for Fridel? Does she use the same definition of any shooting with four or more victims, regardless of whether they died or survived their wounds?