1/6
## MOTHER JONES HAS AN AGENDA ##
Mother Jones says only 16% Mass shooters are Black, and only 9% Latinos (if we look at data since 1982).
SOURCE 1: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/27/us/mass-shootings/
SOURCE 2: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data
However, their definition of mass shooting is:
>Our focus is on public mass shootings in which the motive appeared to be indiscriminate killing. We used the following criteria to identify cases:
>he perpetrator took the lives of at least four people.
>The killings were carried out by a lone shooter.
>The shootings occurred in a public place.
>Perpetrators who died or where wounded during the attack are not included in the victim count.
>We included a handful of cases also known as "spree killings".
2/6
## RELEVANCE OF THE ISSUE ##
But 143 episodes in the 1982-2016 period is really a small issue compared to the 53,000 and more gun accidents and incidents occurred in 2015 only (13,430 confirmed deaths).
SOURCE: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls
So surely America has a gun problem... but a mass shooting one? Maybe it's derivative... but such problems exists even in the hypothetical absence of mass shootings as the ones identified by Mother Jones (which, by the way, do not include gang violence, etc.).
3/6
## A PROBLEM OF DEFINITION ##
The website http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ is more specific.
They distinguish:
>Mass Murder FOUR or more killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location not including the shooter.
>Mass Shooting FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location not including the shooter.
So, it is apparent what MJ refers to is just a subset of Mass Murders (namely, mass murders with no other purpose than killing innocents; that's their focus... not gang violence, etc.).
4/6
## RACE ##
I have no interest in race, but Mother Jones (which, according to CNN, is a reliable source) surely makes a point about race by the way they arranged their dataset.
But is it true whites commit most of the mass shootings?
Looking back at what CNN was worrying us about -- namely, the fact mass shootings is a "white" phenomenon -- doubts arise.
We can conclude:
- Definitely mass murders of the type mother jones is concerned with are a white problem. Nobody can deny that.
- However, how many other mass murders (with motives other than killing innocents) and mass shootings (where most victims didn't die) fall outside Mother Jones' concern?
5/6
## SHOOTINGS ARE AN ISSUE, MASS SHOOTINGS ARE ANOTHER ISSUE, BUT THE MASS MURDERS MOTHER JONES IS CONCERNED ABOUT ARE NOT ##
Let's have a look at what MJ reports for 2015:
>San Bernardino / Dead: 14 / Wounded: 21 / Race of perpetrators: Other [Arab/Muslim]
>Planned Parenthood Clinic / Dead: 3 / Wounded: 9 / Race of perpetrator: White
>Colorado Springs / Dead: 3 / Wounded: 0 / Race of perpetrator: White
>Umpqua College / Dead 9 / Wounded 9 / Race of perpetrator: Other [Arab/Muslim]
>Chattanooga Military Recruitment Center / Dead 5 / Wounded 2 / Race of perpetrator: Other
>Charleston Church Shooting / Dead 9 / Wounded 1 / Race of perpetrator: White
>Trestle Trail bridge / Dead 3 / Wounded 1 / Race of perpetrator: Latino
In total: 46 fatalities
SOURCE: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XV4mZi3gYDgwx5PrLwqqHTUlHkwkV-6uy_yeJh3X46o/edit#gid=0
Now, considering 2015 saw a total of 13,430 gun-related deaths (SOURCE: www.gunviolencearchive.org ), it seems all the media concerns with mass murderers of the Mother Jones' kind (i.e. aimed at killing innocents for the sake of killing) are a very small percentage of the massive gun issues of the country. Namely, about 0.3% of the total fatalities are due to Mother Jones' kind of shootings.
6/6
## RACE AGAIN ##
So who commits all the other gun violence? Is it 50/50? Is it demographically even?
Apparently not.
Unfortunately I have not access to the race of ALL perpetrators in the US.
But I have access to the race of ALL victims.
Apparently, Blacks are twice as likely as be killed by guns as whites are.
Moreover, whites are 5 times more likely to commit suicide than to be killed by a gun, whereas for Blacks it's the opposite: they are 5 times more likely to die because of a shooting than because of suicide.
SOURCE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/19/the-racial-divide-in-americas-gun-deaths/
>Why are you talking blacks? Are you being racist?
No, I'm not. Mother Jones is. Mother Jones and CNN made a great deal about whites being responsible for violence in the US.
They generalized.
>>77925465
>>77925574
>>77925674
>>77925753
>>77925903
>>77925940
All these things considered, my question for anti-gun protesters is:
## DO YOU REALLY WANT TO PLAY THE RACE CARD? ##
Seriously, do you really want to claim guns are white people's issue, and that white people are evil, etc.?
I thought, considering my liberal education -- almost socialist education, I daresay -- that the problem with racism is that it constitutes a never-ending vicious cycle in which each group attacks the other.
That's why, as a socialist, I was thought to never play the race card. Why? Because today it might save me, but next day it may backfire.
So what are anti-guns (and CNN in particular) trying to do when they identify white people with mass murders?
Following their line of thought, I should then identify violence, crime, and robberies with black people in particular (and Latinos marginally).
I thought we were going to say, as socialists, that guns are good only when you revolt against authority (that's authentic socialism = anarcho-socialism), and that we accept authority only when we feel it represents us. Full stop.
So what is these new thing
>muh we socialist; white people evil
White people are not evil. Not intrinsically evil. If we start thinking white people are intrinsically X, Y, or Z... and we rationally use the same spectacles to look at black people, we might end up appreciating black people are P, Q, and R... but that's racism, isn't it?
So why the fuck do liberals care about the race of the shooters?
>>77925465
>Our focus is on public mass shootings in which the motive appeared to be indiscriminate killing.
>indiscriminate killing
>indiscriminate
So the incident in Orlando wasn't a mass shooting?
Good job OP. Have a bump.
However remember Americans know all of this already.
They keep going thorugh it over and over again.
>>77926612
They included Orlando, of course.
But that's why they are biased.
They meant to say:
>we don't focus on gang members shooting each other
>we just focus on that specific kind of mass shootings in which a person (or some people) take guns and go somewhere specific just for the sake of killing people
But of course I agree even this definition is flawed. Suppose a gang leader wants to fuck competitors. He will try to ambush them when they're having fun at the strip club, possibly unharmed.
His purpose is to kill other gang members. Only difference with Orlando is target gangs have a chance to shoot back.
So I agree: MJ is trying to isolate that specific dispositional mental state of the lone wolf shooter... but they themselves make distinctions between targeted shooting and the so-called "killing spree".
Killing sprees are something like:
>I go out and kill whoever passes by
Mother Jones is making things difficult by calling killing of gay "indiscriminate" and killing of somebody who owes you cash "discriminate".
They may be up to something, from a natural kind point of view. I think I understand what they have in mind, but their definition is poorly stated.
They have in mind something like:
>I'll go X place and kill whoever is inside
Not something like
>I'll go X place and kill some people I had previous meaningful interactions and/or exchanges with
>>77927830
>possibly unharmed
*unarmed
>>77927830
M8, I suggest you draft a matrix.
With all variables.
E.g.
>knew the victim(s) beforehand
>targets chosen because of their group identity or because of their personal identity (the two may overlap)
>targets chosen as a representative sample of a broader group
>murderous intentions are satisfied with the elimination of specific targers during the single shooting event or is the shooting event meaningful as just a pace in a theoretical series of events
Etc.
Only this way you can tell difference between
>"killed gays in a club because the owner owned me money"
>"killed gays in a club because I got offended when I visited"
>"killed gays in a club because I think gays should be killed in general"
>"killed gays in a club because Tyrone didn't want to suck my dick that night, but I cannot be satisfied with just killing him. My rage is bigger than his dick"
But it's a hard topic, man
>>77928534
Idea is good, but I'm not a criminologist or anything.
And if people are already doing such detailed profiling... why the fuck isn't this more available on the Internet? Do I have to enroll in a course to get to know this shit?
>mother jones
what the fuck is that
is that like uncle tom or something?
aunt jemima?
