The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[Common Soldier]

A breakdown of mass shootings in the US from 1982 to 2020 shows that out of 118 mass shootings, 65 were by whites 56%, which was.slightly less thsn thr percentage of whites the population. 20 were by blacks, 16%, slightly more than thr black share of the population https://www.statista.com/statistics/...hooter-s-race/

It seems that the danger by white males the media portrays is exaggerated.


Also, you.may have seen this article where 90% of the terrorist attacks in the US were carried out by Non-Muslims: https://www.globalresearch.ca/non-mu...merica/5333619 However this article is very decrptive in a number of ways

1. Muslims make up less than 2% of the population, but committed 10% of the terrorist acts, 500% times their pecentage in the population.

2. The FBI statistics were from 1982 to 2005. In the earlier years of the srudy the Muslim population was even much smaller, the Muslims rate would have been even higher than 500% higher than their share of the population

3. The 2005 cutoff meant that Islamic terrorist attacks like the Fort Hood shooting (13) and Orlando Night Club (50)

4. Most of the terrorist acts did not cause any deaths. If the list was broken by deaths caused, around 90% deaths would be due to Islam terorist, since 911 caused more rhan 90% of all terrorist deaths

5. Mass school shootings like Columbine are not included in the statistic, since they are not considered terrorist acts by the FBI. Las Vegas shooting wouldn'y be either - all the guy did was like to kill not cause terror, apparently. If you added these killings the Muslim percentage would be lower.

If you look at the number of deaths starting from 2001, Muslim terrorism would clearly dominate, I suspect even without 911 attack, because most mass shootings are not considered to be terrorist acts by the FBI Sandy Hook, etc..

[PointOfViewGun]

What is the definition of mass shooting are they using there?

[Common Soldier]

What is the definition of mass shooting are they using there?

3 or more persons. It explains somewhere on the link. Ir used to be 4 or more but the FBI lowered it to 3. Some groups still used 4 or more.

[PointOfViewGun]

3 or more persons. It explains somewhere on the link. Ir used to be 4 or more but the FBI lowered it to 3. Some groups still used 4 or more.

And it includes all kinds of crimes, right? Bank robberies, gang shoot outs, etc? We're not just looking at ideology based mass shootings?

[Common Soldier]

And it includes all kinds of crimes, right? Bank robberies, gang shoot outs, etc? We're not just looking at ideology based mass shootings?

You have the link, you can see what its criteria yourself. It it said all mass shootings. No other criteria was put on it that I know of, so yes gang shooting and robberies would be included.



However, gang and robbery shootings seldom result in more than a couple deaths at time.. Vengence and ideogical shooting probably are the majority.

[Muizer]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...oter-s-gender/

99% of mass shootings are perpetrated by men! Evidently the fact that roughly 50% of the population are men is extremely worrying! By comparison, the signal of race or religion is extremely weak. So, let's tackle the big one first. Should men be forbidden from carrying guns? Should we lock up all men? Perhaps a scheme of euthanizing male baby foetuses would help solve this problem? Suggestions?

[wanderwegger]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...oter-s-gender/

99% of mass shootings are perpetrated by men! Evidently the fact that roughly 50% of the population are men is extremely worrying! By comparison, the signal of race or religion is extremely weak. So, let's tackle the big one first. Should men be forbidden from carrying guns? Should we lock up all men? Perhaps a scheme of euthanizing male baby foetuses would help solve this problem? Suggestions?

Any man who commits an act of violence is sterilized. Over generations those with the most violent genetic tendencies and those families who value violence will decrease.

Alternately we could do what has been wildly successful in many many countries and just ban most guns and make ownership a chore of the rest.

[alhoon]

Alternately we could do what has been wildly successful in many many countries and just ban most guns and make ownership a chore of the rest.

ALL those countries have quickly been over-run by commies or fascists. I mean, unless I am mistaken it is a well known "fact" that the moment the guns are banned, the government will sweep in and arrest everyone and put up a fascist regime. The ONLY thing keeping those wannabe dictators from completely taking over a country in the blink of an eye as we have seen in every country in the world that banned guns... is the right to bear arms. Or the right to arm bears, I am not sure.

[Common Soldier]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...oter-s-gender/

99% of mass shootings are perpetrated by men! Evidently the fact that roughly 50% of the population are men is extremely worrying! By comparison, the signal of race or religion is extremely weak. So, let's tackle the big one first. Should men be forbidden from carrying guns? Should we lock up all men? Perhaps a scheme of euthanizing male baby foetuses would help solve this problem? Suggestions?

There were only 118 total mass shootings over 20 years, which is really not that much for a country of more than 300 million. Should the rights of millions of perfectly law abiding men be penalized for 118? We talking about only 2.4 shootings per year. Consider how many men have died during that same period fighting on behalf of the US, 99% which are men, the mass shootings are nothing. In WW2, there were 405,000 US deaths, and only at most a 1000 were women, meaning 99.8% of the American soldiers being killed were men, and many were drafted, given no choice. And in Vietnam 99% of the US soldiers killed were men too.


And eliminating guns won't necessarily eliminate mass killings, the killers could simply switch to over methods - the greatest mass killing in the US, 911 by far, did not involve any guns. Thedeadliesr school killing in US history, in 1927, was achieved with a bomb, not guns.


Banning men to have guns would save a lot of lives, but not by eliminating mass shootings, which realy don't kill that many in the grsnd scheme of things. It would elimiante young white male suicides and thr deaths of young black males. From 20 - 44 years old, suicides are the 2nd leading cause of death for white males, and 4th lesding cause among 45 - 64 white males https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lco...hor_1571150228 79% of sucides are males and firearms (51%) are the leading method https://save.org/about-suicide/suicide-facts/. The statistics are equally grim for blacks - homicide is the number one cause of deaths for black males 1 - 44 years old https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lco...hor_1571149616 and 80% of black homicides caused by firearms https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_4702228.


It is rather ironical that the number one victim of gun violence in the US are middle age white males killing themselves, followed by young black men shot by other young black men. Guns are far more likely end up killing you than protecting you from some killer.

[Muizer]

There were only 118 total mass shootings over 20 years, which is really not that much for a country of more than 300 million. Should the rights of millions of perfectly law abiding men be penalized for 118? We talking about only 2.4 shootings per year. Consider how many men have died during that same period fighting on behalf of the US, 99% which are men, the mass shootings are nothing. In WW2, there were 405,000 US deaths, and only at most a 1000 were women, meaning 99.8% of the American soldiers being killed were men, and many were drafted, given no choice. And in Vietnam 99% of the US soldiers killed were men too.


And eliminating guns won't necessarily eliminate mass killings, the killers could simply switch to over methods - the greatest mass killing in the US, 911 by far, did not involve any guns. Thedeadliesr school killing in US history, in 1927, was achieved with a bomb, not guns.


Banning men to have guns would save a lot of lives, but not by eliminating mass shootings, which realy don't kill that many in the grsnd scheme of things. It would elimiante young white male suicides and thr deaths of young black males. From 20 - 44 years old, suicides are the 2nd leading cause of death for white males, and 4th lesding cause among 45 - 64 white males https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lco...hor_1571150228 79% of sucides are males and firearms (51%) are the leading method https://save.org/about-suicide/suicide-facts/. The statistics are equally grim for blacks - homicide is the number one cause of deaths for black males 1 - 44 years old https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lco...hor_1571149616 and 80% of black homicides caused by firearms https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_4702228.


It is rather ironical that the number one victim of gun violence in the US are middle age white males killing themselves, followed by young black men shot by other young black men. Guns are far more likely end up killing you than protecting you from some killer.

Yes, you correctly identified the fallacy that if 99 % of mass shootings are committed by men, that does not mean in any way that a significant percentage of men is likely to at some point be a mass shooter.

Keeping that in mind, what point were you trying to make about muslims and terrorism?

[Common Soldier]

.

Keeping that in mind, what point were you trying to make about muslims and terrorism?

That Muslim.terrorism is more of a threat than some think.


The small number of Muslims in the US means that overall the number of terrorist is small. But as the Muslim population grows.rspidly in the US, we can expect.thr number of terrorist acts to incresee as well in proportion , especially the number of serious terrorist attacks. Internal domestic toerrorism will hecome a rapidly increasing problem in the US, with the terrorist acts becoming more deadly as well as more numerous. Even though Muslims only committed only 10% of the terrorist acts, they committed well over 90% of the death even today. As Muslims increase, the problem will grow.


The Left concentrates on the alt right and white supemacist groups, but the statistics don't support those concerns while the statistics do support the concerns of the Right about Muslims. The Left becomes hyperdefensive about Muslims, but the evidence shows Muslims are where the problem lies with regard to terrorism - Muslims cause 90%+ of terrorism deaths, they deserve 90% of the scrutiny by government. Yet the Left wants 90% of the scrutiny to go the alt right.

[alhoon]

To be fair, most of terrorist attacks in the USA in the past decade have been done by far rightwings, but that should be in a different thread.

[Common Soldier]

To be fair, most of terrorist attacks in the USA in the past decade have been done by far rightwings, but that should be in a different thread.

Perhaps true, but it did not seem true for upto 2005 when I looked at the listing of terrorist attacks by the FBI. Perhaps there has been a sharp uptake in the last decade, but perhaps not.


My link on mass shootings, which would include fwr right shootings, don't incidate whites, which would include include far right shootings, are any higher thsn whites share of the population. That suggest what you say is not true.


Furthermore, a breakdown of hate crimes in the US by the FBI in 2018 showed only 53.6% of the hate crimes were by whites, and 24% by blacks, with 13% of the race of the offender unknown. https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2018/...ages/offenders That shows blacks commit significantly more hate crimes per their share of population, and whites actually less. That goes against your claim agsinst far right groups. Your claim isn't showing up in data. If white commit the majority of the hate crimes it is only because whites are the majority of the population.

If these statics on hate crimes come as a surprise to you, as they did me, it is becausenyou are relying too much on the media. The false impression you have of whites comkitting more hate crimes is because hate crimes by whites, and crimes committed by far rights groups, are given more attention than hate crimes by blacks. It is further evidence of the Left leaning bias of the media, to the point where the public is badly informed.


Now. the media does not often engage is deliberate lying, but it has sometimes, as demonstrated by NBC editing tapes to make Zimmerman seem guilty https://deadline.com/2012/05/third-p...-audio-266597/ . Of course, it may be that such misreporting is more common, but the media just doesn't get caught most of the time. But more likely, it is just the media just gives stories thst promote a leftist slant more air time, more national exposure. It you know the name of Trayvon Martin but not Chris Cerivini my point is proved.

[Muizer]

That Muslim.terrorism is more of a threat than some think.


The small number of Muslims in the US means that overall the number of terrorist is small. But as the Muslim population grows.rspidly in the US, we can expect.thr number of terrorist acts to incresee as well in proportion , especially the number of serious terrorist attacks. Internal domestic toerrorism will hecome a rapidly increasing problem in the US, with the terrorist acts becoming more deadly as well as more numerous. Even though Muslims only committed only 10% of the terrorist acts, they committed well over 90% of the death even today. As Muslims increase, the problem will grow.


The Left concentrates on the alt right and white supemacist groups, but the statistics don't support those concerns while the statistics do support the concerns of the Right about Muslims. The Left becomes hyperdefensive about Muslims, but the evidence shows Muslims are where the problem lies with regard to terrorism - Muslims cause 90%+ of terrorism deaths, they deserve 90% of the scrutiny by government. Yet the Left wants 90% of the scrutiny to go the alt right.

I see you didn't get the point after all. If men commit 99% of mass shootings, you counter that that doesn't mean men in general are dangerous, because the percentage of men committing mass shootings is too low for that. However, when you point out that muslims are overrepresented in acts of terrorism, you make no similar analysis (that this does not mean muslims are dangerous in general, because the percentage of muslims committing terrorist acts is too low) but instead say they deserve 90% of the scrutiny and imply they're a growing threat. You're being inconsistent in the consequences you attach to statistics.

Also, I don't think it makes sense to qualify the people that point out that tendency as being "hyperdefensive about muslims". Hyperdefensive about freedom and equality and all those other modern values our constitutions are supposed to protect. Is that bad?

[Common Soldier]

I see you didn't get the point after all. If men commit 99% of mass shootings, you counter that that doesn't mean men in general are dangerous, because the percentage of men committing mass shootings is too low for that. However, when you point out that muslims are overrepresented in acts of terrorism, you make no similar analysis (that this does not mean muslims are dangerous in general, because the percentage of muslims committing terrorist acts is too low) but instead say they deserve 90% of the scrutiny and imply they're a growing threat. You're being inconsistent in the consequences you attach to statistics.

Also, I don't think it makes sense to qualify the people that point out that tendency as being "hyperdefensive about muslims". Hyperdefensive about freedom and equality and all those other modern values our constitutions are supposed to protect. Is that bad?

OK, you made a valid some valid points,

[wanderwegger]

OK, you made a valid some valid points,

And than you wake up one morning and change has happened. The impossible has been made real. And hope, for a better world, for education and dialogue as a tool to end ignorance, for a just and equal society may be just beyond the horizon. So close, if you squint and never forget dreams come to pass more often than is thought, you see a future without the sadness of hate. And what else can a decent man do but rededicate themselves to the struggle. Remake themselves in the image they profess.

Please accept my apologies Common for the unkindness I have directed at you. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Cookiegod]

I totally get muizer's point that it's wrong to put entire demographics under general suspicion, and I agree with that.

But just for the record: Men are most definitely more dangerous.

[Aexodus]

Men are far more violent than women. They are however, half the population and evenly distributed through that population, therefore it is just impractical to put them under more scrutiny on a national scale.

On the ground however, it makes sense if police are looking for a male suspect, to profile men as such and not give women much notice. The vice versa applies equally.

[wanderwegger]

But are Muslim men more dangerous than Christian men? Are black men more dangerous than white men?

What are your thoughts Common?

[alhoon]

Are black men more dangerous than white men?

Just because it needs to be said:
It doesn't go by the color of one's skin, it is affected by one's present circumstances and education. Poor people and poorly educated people with few prospects to get a better life are more dangerous. If the situation was changed by a magic wand and green-skinned humans appeared and were poorly educated, trapped in a system (yes a system) that gave them fewer opportunities on top of their fewer prospects and they were poor and unable to afford a reasonable quality of life without turning to crime large and small, then these green-skinned humans would be more dangerous than white men.

White people in the poor areas and crime-infested ghettos are probably as likely to be violent as black people.