So, just dumb then?
Riiight, like that dumb Steven Pinker, award-winning Harvard professor. Steven Pinker | Department of Psychology
Ah I think I found the difference–the Fridel paper is looking at incidents where four or more people, excluding the perpetrator or unborn children, were killed–the NYTimes is looking at incidents where four or more people are killed or wounded. What this seems to show is that incidents with black shooters tend to be less lethal. Interesting.
You know that you and he are not the same person, right? And that using another person’s words does not convey their authority on you, right? A parrot can mimic my speech, but does he pay my mortgage?
Oh, for crissake. Can we just agree to use the Mother Jones database, so at least we’re working from a common set of definitions?
And if you don’t like their definition, go start a thread on “crimes in which guns are used”.
So you think his argument in The Blank Slate is legit, whatever you think of me? I’m cool with that. It’s not about me. Not sure why your parroting of the SSSM is smart while mine of TBS is dumb, but w/e.
ETA: Jsc, I consider NYT a more trustworthy source than Mother Jones. And they are not talking about the broad category of gun crimes, but the much narrower one of those with four or more victims.
… who is a brilliant communicator, an extraordinarily gifted writer, and wrong about a lot of things.
The nice thing about Mother Jones is that it’s empirical data—trust doesn’t come into it. If you don’t like their definition, fine; but you can’t argue with their conclusion because they don’t draw any.
How is the NYT statement that 75% of identifiable assailants and victims are black a “conclusion” as opposed to reporting a fact?
I would love to go through TBS line by line with you and all the others who make these vague claims and pin you down on what he gets “wrong”. :dubious:
You are as free to assume my agreement as you’ve already shown yourself regarding a multitude of other beliefs, opinions and viewpoints.
It’s a fact; it just happens to be one that’s irrelevant to the discussion of mass shootings. The New York Times definition is so broad as to be useless.
Huh, I think it’s a solid definition. Shooting four or more people is a lot. I could see how counting two or more as “multiple victim shootings” might be too broad, but by the time you get to four (or more!), you’re really going for it.
It’s not the number; it’s the context. The NYT would put The St Valentines Day Massacre in the same bucket as El Paso, and that makes no sense to me.
The NYT said many of them have no known motive. You just won’t count thise?
Won’t make a difference to the NRA lobbyist crowd. More guns is ALWAYS THE ANSWER.
In Dayton, the problem was, there were not MORE armed police. IF only there were police in every store in a mall, 5 in every bar, and 15 fully armed officers in each school. Give everyone a fully automatic rifle, and have them carry it locked and loaded everywhere they go. Army patrols on every corner. This is the America that these people dream of.
I honestly think the free market can curtail the majority of lone gunman type mass shootings, if allowed to. Lawyers and insurance companies could bring swift changes. Buying an assault weapon could jack ur home owners premiums through the roof, and if lawyers are allowed to sue all actors involved, would bring swift changes. Let the American system work as intended. It worked for muscle cars, they died pretty quick.
Sorry it’s not just mental illness, in fact, many homicides, including mass murders, are accomplished by people who are sane enough to be charged and tried. When training and licensing requirements for gun ownership are as stringent as for a Cosmetology license, we’ll start to have progress. The Barbering and Cosmetology Act - California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology
Apparently the El Paso shooter lived in Plano (in the DFW area, 9 hours from El Paso).
So he drove 9 hours to 80% Hispanic El Paso to shoot up a bunch of brown-skinned people.