White men have much to discuss about mass shootings

I thought we were discussing the United States of America? If we are, 77.7% of the population are white male. So it only makes sense that the majority of shootings would be white male too! However, I still believe the shootings are orchestrated by a higher power to implement more gun control. :)

Ummm.... don't think so dood. :rofl:

Perhaps when you're older you'll discover what we call "women".
 
Well, if you think about it, one of the reasons why our homicide rates are so high is because of GANG related violence and homicides, whether they be intentional or unintentional, and not these random types of school shootings. Why do gangs thrive in the US? Probably because of our so-called "war on drugs." They fight over their territories for distributing drugs. These gangs have the market cornered on drugs because they are illegal. So in all reality, the government is responsible for the violence and the high homicide rates. Our homicide rates have NOTHING to do with legal and law abiding gun owners, however.

But gang homicides, and murders in general, are a different thing from mass shootings.

Murders have specific targets, mass shootings do not. They have two different objectives.
 
Well, if you think about it, one of the reasons why our homicide rates are so high is because of GANG related violence and homicides, whether they be intentional or unintentional, and not these random types of school shootings. Why do gangs thrive in the US? Probably because of our so-called "war on drugs." They fight over their territories for distributing drugs. These gangs have the market cornered on drugs because they are illegal. So in all reality, the government is responsible for the violence and the high homicide rates. Our homicide rates have NOTHING to do with legal and law abiding gun owners, however.

But gang homicides, and murders in general, are a different thing from mass shootings.

Murders have specific targets, mass shootings do not. They have two different objectives.

A southeast Houston family is dealing with unimaginable grief. A six-year-old boy is dead and his 11-year-old brother in a hospital after someone started shooting at their house early Friday morning.

This was a drive by shooting. Are you suggesting these two boys were the targets? And are you suggesting that having a specific target means no unintended victims are ever harmed?

You can find hundreds of incidents where innocent bystanders were injured or killed in such attacks. But go ahead and stay ignorant.
 
Well, if you think about it, one of the reasons why our homicide rates are so high is because of GANG related violence and homicides, whether they be intentional or unintentional, and not these random types of school shootings. Why do gangs thrive in the US? Probably because of our so-called "war on drugs." They fight over their territories for distributing drugs. These gangs have the market cornered on drugs because they are illegal. So in all reality, the government is responsible for the violence and the high homicide rates. Our homicide rates have NOTHING to do with legal and law abiding gun owners, however.

But gang homicides, and murders in general, are a different thing from mass shootings.

Murders have specific targets, mass shootings do not. They have two different objectives.

A southeast Houston family is dealing with unimaginable grief. A six-year-old boy is dead and his 11-year-old brother in a hospital after someone started shooting at their house early Friday morning.

This was a drive by shooting. Are you suggesting these two boys were the targets? And are you suggesting that having a specific target means no unintended victims are ever harmed?

You can find hundreds of incidents where innocent bystanders were injured or killed in such attacks. But go ahead and stay ignorant.

No, that hasn't the vaguest relationship to my point at all. So your "go ahead and stay ignorant" refers to your own abject lack of reading comprehension. Maybe you should make the attempt to understand what the fuck's being said before running on your own assumptions that have no basis.

Try again, and read the actual POST this time.
 
Well, if you think about it, one of the reasons why our homicide rates are so high is because of GANG related violence and homicides, whether they be intentional or unintentional, and not these random types of school shootings. Why do gangs thrive in the US? Probably because of our so-called "war on drugs." They fight over their territories for distributing drugs. These gangs have the market cornered on drugs because they are illegal. So in all reality, the government is responsible for the violence and the high homicide rates. Our homicide rates have NOTHING to do with legal and law abiding gun owners, however.

But gang homicides, and murders in general, are a different thing from mass shootings.

Murders have specific targets, mass shootings do not. They have two different objectives.

A southeast Houston family is dealing with unimaginable grief. A six-year-old boy is dead and his 11-year-old brother in a hospital after someone started shooting at their house early Friday morning.

This was a drive by shooting. Are you suggesting these two boys were the targets? And are you suggesting that having a specific target means no unintended victims are ever harmed?

You can find hundreds of incidents where innocent bystanders were injured or killed in such attacks. But go ahead and stay ignorant.

No, that hasn't the vaguest relationship to my point at all. So your "go ahead and stay ignorant" refers to your own abject lack of reading comprehension. Maybe you should make the attempt to understand what the fuck's being said before running on your own assumptions that have no basis.
I was going to say something along the same lines but you cant fix stupid. Especially when the stupid person in question is a convict like lonleystar.
 
As they see their perceived white alpha male rights slipping away, we can expect more of this behavior by the aggrieved low educated



"Nearly all of the mass shootings in this country in recent years — not just Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, Tucson and Columbine — have been committed by white men and boys. Yet when the National Rifle Association (NRA), led by white men, held a news conference after the Newtown massacre to advise Americans on how to reduce gun violence, its leaders’ opinions were widely discussed.

Unlike other groups, white men are not used to being singled out. So we expect that many of them will protest it is unfair if we talk about them. But our nation must correctly define their contribution to our problem of gun violence if it is to be solved.


When white men try to divert attention from gun control by talking about mental health issues, many people buy into the idea that the United States has a national mental health problem, or flawed systems with which to address those problems, and they think that is what produces mass shootings.

But women and girls with mental health issues are not picking up semiautomatic weapons and shooting schoolchildren. Immigrants with mental health issues are not committing mass shootings in malls and movie theaters. Latinos with mental health issues are not continually killing groups of strangers."

White men have much to discuss about mass shootings

Comparing FBI homocide stats by ethnicity, whites murder other whites and blacks murder other blacks at about the same rates,

Expanded Homicide Data Table 6

While mass shooters may disproportianately be white, overall the numbers are about the same. If you added up all the victims, it's roughly identical. Whites get more victims in single incidents, but blacks get just about as many though in seperate incidents.

I don't see any evidence either's more homocidal than the other.
 
Well, if you think about it, one of the reasons why our homicide rates are so high is because of GANG related violence and homicides, whether they be intentional or unintentional, and not these random types of school shootings. Why do gangs thrive in the US? Probably because of our so-called "war on drugs." They fight over their territories for distributing drugs. These gangs have the market cornered on drugs because they are illegal. So in all reality, the government is responsible for the violence and the high homicide rates. Our homicide rates have NOTHING to do with legal and law abiding gun owners, however.

But gang homicides, and murders in general, are a different thing from mass shootings.

Murders have specific targets, mass shootings do not. They have two different objectives.

A southeast Houston family is dealing with unimaginable grief. A six-year-old boy is dead and his 11-year-old brother in a hospital after someone started shooting at their house early Friday morning.

This was a drive by shooting. Are you suggesting these two boys were the targets? And are you suggesting that having a specific target means no unintended victims are ever harmed?

You can find hundreds of incidents where innocent bystanders were injured or killed in such attacks. But go ahead and stay ignorant.

No, that hasn't the vaguest relationship to my point at all. So your "go ahead and stay ignorant" refers to your own abject lack of reading comprehension. Maybe you should make the attempt to understand what the fuck's being said before running on your own assumptions that have no basis.

Try again, and read the actual POST this time.

Then your post was an utter failure because you made NO point.
 
Well, if you think about it, one of the reasons why our homicide rates are so high is because of GANG related violence and homicides, whether they be intentional or unintentional, and not these random types of school shootings. Why do gangs thrive in the US? Probably because of our so-called "war on drugs." They fight over their territories for distributing drugs. These gangs have the market cornered on drugs because they are illegal. So in all reality, the government is responsible for the violence and the high homicide rates. Our homicide rates have NOTHING to do with legal and law abiding gun owners, however.

But gang homicides, and murders in general, are a different thing from mass shootings.

Murders have specific targets, mass shootings do not. They have two different objectives.

A southeast Houston family is dealing with unimaginable grief. A six-year-old boy is dead and his 11-year-old brother in a hospital after someone started shooting at their house early Friday morning.

This was a drive by shooting. Are you suggesting these two boys were the targets? And are you suggesting that having a specific target means no unintended victims are ever harmed?

You can find hundreds of incidents where innocent bystanders were injured or killed in such attacks. But go ahead and stay ignorant.

No, that hasn't the vaguest relationship to my point at all. So your "go ahead and stay ignorant" refers to your own abject lack of reading comprehension. Maybe you should make the attempt to understand what the fuck's being said before running on your own assumptions that have no basis.

Try again, and read the actual POST this time.

Then your post was an utter failure because you made NO point.

Then both of your posts are utter failures since you're too stupid to figure it out.
Not my problem though.
 
As they see their perceived white alpha male rights slipping away, we can expect more of this behavior by the aggrieved low educated



"Nearly all of the mass shootings in this country in recent years — not just Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, Tucson and Columbine — have been committed by white men and boys. Yet when the National Rifle Association (NRA), led by white men, held a news conference after the Newtown massacre to advise Americans on how to reduce gun violence, its leaders’ opinions were widely discussed.

Unlike other groups, white men are not used to being singled out. So we expect that many of them will protest it is unfair if we talk about them. But our nation must correctly define their contribution to our problem of gun violence if it is to be solved.


When white men try to divert attention from gun control by talking about mental health issues, many people buy into the idea that the United States has a national mental health problem, or flawed systems with which to address those problems, and they think that is what produces mass shootings.

But women and girls with mental health issues are not picking up semiautomatic weapons and shooting schoolchildren. Immigrants with mental health issues are not committing mass shootings in malls and movie theaters. Latinos with mental health issues are not continually killing groups of strangers."

White men have much to discuss about mass shootings

Comparing FBI homocide stats by ethnicity, whites murder other whites and blacks murder other blacks at about the same rates,

Expanded Homicide Data Table 6

While mass shooters may disproportianately be white, overall the numbers are about the same. If you added up all the victims, it's roughly identical. Whites get more victims in single incidents, but blacks get just about as many though in seperate incidents.

I don't see any evidence either's more homocidal than the other.

Once AGAIN -- the thread isn't about "homicides" --- it's about mass shootings.
They're two different things, perpetrated by two different kinds of people for two different reasons. Conflating the two serves no purpose.
 
Well, if you think about it, one of the reasons why our homicide rates are so high is because of GANG related violence and homicides, whether they be intentional or unintentional, and not these random types of school shootings. Why do gangs thrive in the US? Probably because of our so-called "war on drugs." They fight over their territories for distributing drugs. These gangs have the market cornered on drugs because they are illegal. So in all reality, the government is responsible for the violence and the high homicide rates. Our homicide rates have NOTHING to do with legal and law abiding gun owners, however.

But gang homicides, and murders in general, are a different thing from mass shootings.

Murders have specific targets, mass shootings do not. They have two different objectives.

A southeast Houston family is dealing with unimaginable grief. A six-year-old boy is dead and his 11-year-old brother in a hospital after someone started shooting at their house early Friday morning.

This was a drive by shooting. Are you suggesting these two boys were the targets? And are you suggesting that having a specific target means no unintended victims are ever harmed?

You can find hundreds of incidents where innocent bystanders were injured or killed in such attacks. But go ahead and stay ignorant.

No, that hasn't the vaguest relationship to my point at all. So your "go ahead and stay ignorant" refers to your own abject lack of reading comprehension. Maybe you should make the attempt to understand what the fuck's being said before running on your own assumptions that have no basis.

Try again, and read the actual POST this time.

Then your post was an utter failure because you made NO point.

Then both of your posts are utter failures since you're too stupid to figure it out.
Not my problem though.

If your point is that mass shooters do not have specific targets, then you are wrong. The Oregon shooter had specific targets.
 
I thought we were discussing the United States of America? If we are, 77.7% of the population are white male. So it only makes sense that the majority of shootings would be white male too! However, I still believe the shootings are orchestrated by a higher power to implement more gun control. :)

Ummm.... don't think so dood. :rofl:

Perhaps when you're older you'll discover what we call "women".

Just to toss out a casual calculation using 49% to 51% male-female ratio, the white male population would be about 38% of the general population, although that includes everybody down to babies on one end and old geezers on the other. Eliminating kids under 14 and men over 80 (which amount to 23.5%) brings that down to a shade over 29% (29.07). If we also remove Hispanics from the "white" category we start with 62.6% (white non-Hispanic) population and end up with 23.465 percent of the population, committing about 95% of the mass shootings.

That's just a shade outside the parameters of probability.
Let's face it, mass shootings are, among other things, a masculinity issue.
 
But gang homicides, and murders in general, are a different thing from mass shootings.

Murders have specific targets, mass shootings do not. They have two different objectives.

A southeast Houston family is dealing with unimaginable grief. A six-year-old boy is dead and his 11-year-old brother in a hospital after someone started shooting at their house early Friday morning.

This was a drive by shooting. Are you suggesting these two boys were the targets? And are you suggesting that having a specific target means no unintended victims are ever harmed?

You can find hundreds of incidents where innocent bystanders were injured or killed in such attacks. But go ahead and stay ignorant.

No, that hasn't the vaguest relationship to my point at all. So your "go ahead and stay ignorant" refers to your own abject lack of reading comprehension. Maybe you should make the attempt to understand what the fuck's being said before running on your own assumptions that have no basis.

Try again, and read the actual POST this time.

Then your post was an utter failure because you made NO point.

Then both of your posts are utter failures since you're too stupid to figure it out.
Not my problem though.

If your point is that mass shooters do not have specific targets, then you are wrong. The Oregon shooter had specific targets.

Cheeses K. Reist on a cracker....

"Specific target" doesn't mean you aim the fucking gun. It means you have a specific reason for a specific person. Your spouse boinks a neighbor, your business partner screws you, a witness to something you did knows too much --- that's a specific target. That target has a name and a history that makes them a target. It's PERSONAL. You may even hire a hit man. If you do, you give him instructions on WHO you want eliminated. And you don't want him eliminating the wrong target, because the wrong target has no history to make them a target, plus you haven't eliminated the person who IS your target.

That's what "murder" is. It's specific and it's personal. Its goal is to eliminate "specific person X"

Mass shooting is IMpersonal. It doesn't matter who the target is-- the target has no history, no motivational reason to be a target. If person number 56 isn't in sight, person 61 will do just fine. Because the object of a mass shooter is not to eliminate a specific person; it's to spew carnage and tally numbers. It's completely about the shooter's personal power. That's what they ALL have in common and that's what makes it a masculinity issue.

Two different motivations for two different acts.

Understand now?
 
Last edited:
A southeast Houston family is dealing with unimaginable grief. A six-year-old boy is dead and his 11-year-old brother in a hospital after someone started shooting at their house early Friday morning.

This was a drive by shooting. Are you suggesting these two boys were the targets? And are you suggesting that having a specific target means no unintended victims are ever harmed?

You can find hundreds of incidents where innocent bystanders were injured or killed in such attacks. But go ahead and stay ignorant.

No, that hasn't the vaguest relationship to my point at all. So your "go ahead and stay ignorant" refers to your own abject lack of reading comprehension. Maybe you should make the attempt to understand what the fuck's being said before running on your own assumptions that have no basis.

Try again, and read the actual POST this time.

Then your post was an utter failure because you made NO point.

Then both of your posts are utter failures since you're too stupid to figure it out.
Not my problem though.

If your point is that mass shooters do not have specific targets, then you are wrong. The Oregon shooter had specific targets.

Cheeses K. Reist on a cracker....

"Specific target" doesn't mean you aim the fucking gun. It means you have a specific reason for a specific person. Your spouse boinks a neighbor, your business partner screws you, a witness to something you did knows too much --- that's a specific target. That target has a name and a history that makes them a target. It's PERSONAL. You may even hire a hit man. If you do, you give him instructions on WHO you want eliminated. And you don't want him eliminating the wrong target, because the wrong target has no history to make them a target, plus you haven't eliminated the person who IS your target.

That's what "murder" is. It's specific and it's personal.

Mass shooting is IMpersonal. It doesn't matter who the target is-- the target has no history, no motivational reason to be a target. If person number 56 isn't in sight, person 61 will do just fine. Because the object of a mass shooter is not to eliminate a specific person; it's to spew carnage and tally numbers. It's completely about the shooter's personal power. That's what they ALL have in common and that's what makes it a masculinity issue.

Two different motivations.

He specifically went there to kill people, more specifically Christians. So yes, he had specific targets. You were shown to be wrong about him having specific targets so now you switch to motivation. SMH
 
No, that hasn't the vaguest relationship to my point at all. So your "go ahead and stay ignorant" refers to your own abject lack of reading comprehension. Maybe you should make the attempt to understand what the fuck's being said before running on your own assumptions that have no basis.

Try again, and read the actual POST this time.

Then your post was an utter failure because you made NO point.

Then both of your posts are utter failures since you're too stupid to figure it out.
Not my problem though.

If your point is that mass shooters do not have specific targets, then you are wrong. The Oregon shooter had specific targets.

Cheeses K. Reist on a cracker....

"Specific target" doesn't mean you aim the fucking gun. It means you have a specific reason for a specific person. Your spouse boinks a neighbor, your business partner screws you, a witness to something you did knows too much --- that's a specific target. That target has a name and a history that makes them a target. It's PERSONAL. You may even hire a hit man. If you do, you give him instructions on WHO you want eliminated. And you don't want him eliminating the wrong target, because the wrong target has no history to make them a target, plus you haven't eliminated the person who IS your target.

That's what "murder" is. It's specific and it's personal.

Mass shooting is IMpersonal. It doesn't matter who the target is-- the target has no history, no motivational reason to be a target. If person number 56 isn't in sight, person 61 will do just fine. Because the object of a mass shooter is not to eliminate a specific person; it's to spew carnage and tally numbers. It's completely about the shooter's personal power. That's what they ALL have in common and that's what makes it a masculinity issue.

Two different motivations.

He specifically went there to kill people, more specifically Christians. So yes, he had specific targets. You were shown to be wrong about him having specific targets so now you switch to motivation. SMH

Did he know their names and histories? Did he know them personally?
Being part of some descriptive category, or a perceived part of some category --- does not make them personal acquaintances. It's STILL impersonal.

WHO did he know among the targets?
WHO did Wade Michael Page know among his targets when he went to shoot Sikhs thinking he was shooting "Muslims"?
WHO did Jim David Adkisson know among his targets when he went to shoot "Liberals"?
WHO did Dylann Roof know among his targets when he went to shoot "blacks"?

Answer to all of the above: NOBODY. They're just numbers, didn't matter who they were, because it's IMPERSONAL. It's just numbers. Because it's not a task to eliminate some specifice person for some specific reason --- it's a power trip for the shooter. Whether the impersonal is categorized or not doesn't affect that.

I don't know why I bother wasting my time on the dense...
 
Last edited:
As they see their perceived white alpha male rights slipping away, we can expect more of this behavior by the aggrieved low educated



"Nearly all of the mass shootings in this country in recent years — not just Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, Tucson and Columbine — have been committed by white men and boys. Yet when the National Rifle Association (NRA), led by white men, held a news conference after the Newtown massacre to advise Americans on how to reduce gun violence, its leaders’ opinions were widely discussed.

Unlike other groups, white men are not used to being singled out. So we expect that many of them will protest it is unfair if we talk about them. But our nation must correctly define their contribution to our problem of gun violence if it is to be solved.


When white men try to divert attention from gun control by talking about mental health issues, many people buy into the idea that the United States has a national mental health problem, or flawed systems with which to address those problems, and they think that is what produces mass shootings.

But women and girls with mental health issues are not picking up semiautomatic weapons and shooting schoolchildren. Immigrants with mental health issues are not committing mass shootings in malls and movie theaters. Latinos with mental health issues are not continually killing groups of strangers."

White men have much to discuss about mass shootings

Comparing FBI homocide stats by ethnicity, whites murder other whites and blacks murder other blacks at about the same rates,

Expanded Homicide Data Table 6

While mass shooters may disproportianately be white, overall the numbers are about the same. If you added up all the victims, it's roughly identical. Whites get more victims in single incidents, but blacks get just about as many though in seperate incidents.

I don't see any evidence either's more homocidal than the other.

Once AGAIN -- the thread isn't about "homicides" --- it's about mass shootings.
They're two different things, perpetrated by two different kinds of people for two different reasons. Conflating the two serves no purpose.

Mass shootings ARE homicides. They would be included under HOMICIDES on any government website as far as statistical data is concerned.
 
Victims are victims and don't care about the subtype of being murdered. Only reason to emphasize it is to make a racist arguement.
 
A southeast Houston family is dealing with unimaginable grief. A six-year-old boy is dead and his 11-year-old brother in a hospital after someone started shooting at their house early Friday morning.

This was a drive by shooting. Are you suggesting these two boys were the targets? And are you suggesting that having a specific target means no unintended victims are ever harmed?

You can find hundreds of incidents where innocent bystanders were injured or killed in such attacks. But go ahead and stay ignorant.

No, that hasn't the vaguest relationship to my point at all. So your "go ahead and stay ignorant" refers to your own abject lack of reading comprehension. Maybe you should make the attempt to understand what the fuck's being said before running on your own assumptions that have no basis.

Try again, and read the actual POST this time.

Then your post was an utter failure because you made NO point.

Then both of your posts are utter failures since you're too stupid to figure it out.
Not my problem though.

If your point is that mass shooters do not have specific targets, then you are wrong. The Oregon shooter had specific targets.

Cheeses K. Reist on a cracker....

"Specific target" doesn't mean you aim the fucking gun. It means you have a specific reason for a specific person. Your spouse boinks a neighbor, your business partner screws you, a witness to something you did knows too much --- that's a specific target. That target has a name and a history that makes them a target. It's PERSONAL. You may even hire a hit man. If you do, you give him instructions on WHO you want eliminated. And you don't want him eliminating the wrong target, because the wrong target has no history to make them a target, plus you haven't eliminated the person who IS your target.

That's what "murder" is. It's specific and it's personal. Its goal is to eliminate "specific person X"

Mass shooting is IMpersonal. It doesn't matter who the target is-- the target has no history, no motivational reason to be a target. If person number 56 isn't in sight, person 61 will do just fine. Because the object of a mass shooter is not to eliminate a specific person; it's to spew carnage and tally numbers. It's completely about the shooter's personal power. That's what they ALL have in common and that's what makes it a masculinity issue.

Two different motivations for two different acts.

Understand now?
He'll never figure it out. Even if he did he would lie about it like all convicts do.
 
As they see their perceived white alpha male rights slipping away, we can expect more of this behavior by the aggrieved low educated



"Nearly all of the mass shootings in this country in recent years — not just Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, Tucson and Columbine — have been committed by white men and boys. Yet when the National Rifle Association (NRA), led by white men, held a news conference after the Newtown massacre to advise Americans on how to reduce gun violence, its leaders’ opinions were widely discussed.

Unlike other groups, white men are not used to being singled out. So we expect that many of them will protest it is unfair if we talk about them. But our nation must correctly define their contribution to our problem of gun violence if it is to be solved.


When white men try to divert attention from gun control by talking about mental health issues, many people buy into the idea that the United States has a national mental health problem, or flawed systems with which to address those problems, and they think that is what produces mass shootings.

But women and girls with mental health issues are not picking up semiautomatic weapons and shooting schoolchildren. Immigrants with mental health issues are not committing mass shootings in malls and movie theaters. Latinos with mental health issues are not continually killing groups of strangers."

White men have much to discuss about mass shootings

The shooter in Oregon was black, you fucking racist retard.
 
12115739_1080378421987514_7127902849279440854_n.jpg

Good grief. If anyone deserves an invitation to the White House, it would be this guy. He's a hero. Too bad our president seems to be more concerned with making excuses for thuggish behavior instead of honoring those who really deserve to be mentioned by him and invited to the White House to meet the president and shake his hand. This guy saved COUNTLESS lives by putting his own at risk.
 

Forum List

Back
Top