White men have much to discuss about mass shootings

[Pogo]

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.

They're only "homicides" in that somebody was killed. That doesn't address what makes it happen in the first place, which as I read it seems to be the point of this thread. If every killing were lumped under the term "homicide" so it could be dismissed, then a soldier who kills another soldier on a battlefield is also guilty of "homicide".

Motivations matter. They matter because they make things happen, and they make things not happen. To ignore the root causes is to ignore the entire problem. Lumping them all into "homicides" and then conveniently concluding "nothing to see here, move along", is the same as running away from it and burying one's head in the proverbial sand.

 

[Pogo]

Victims are victims and don't care about the subtype of being murdered. Only reason to emphasize it is to make a racist arguement.

Once again a swing and miss.
This thread doesn't focus on victims. Its focus is on the perpetrator. And specifically on what makes them be perpetrators.

There's nothing "racist" about saying it's a masculinity issue. But there is something "obvious".

 

[ChrisL]

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.

They're only "homicides" in that somebody was killed. That doesn't address what makes it happen in the first place, which as I read it seems to be the point of this thread. If every killing were lumped under the term "homicide" so it could be dismissed, then a soldier who kills another soldier is also guilty of "homicide".

Motivations matter. They matter because they make things happen. To ignore the root causes is to ignore the entire problem. Lumping them all into "homicides" and then conveniently concluding "nothing to see here, move along", is the same as running away from it and burying one's head in the proverbial sand.

Statistics matter too, and statistically inner city type homicides far outnumber mass shooting homicides.

 

[Pogo]

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.

They're only "homicides" in that somebody was killed. That doesn't address what makes it happen in the first place, which as I read it seems to be the point of this thread. If every killing were lumped under the term "homicide" so it could be dismissed, then a soldier who kills another soldier is also guilty of "homicide".

Motivations matter. They matter because they make things happen. To ignore the root causes is to ignore the entire problem. Lumping them all into "homicides" and then conveniently concluding "nothing to see here, move along", is the same as running away from it and burying one's head in the proverbial sand.

Statistics matter too, and statistically inner city type homicides far outnumber mass shooting homicides.

Whatever. This topic is not about homicides. It's about psychology.

This is the elephant in the room:

Many school shooters, one common factor: a warped view of masculinity

Mass Killings in the US: Masculinity, Masculinity, Masculinity
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/31/ame..._myth_of_the_senseless_mass_shooting_partner/
America's White Masculinity Complex and the Myth of the "Senseless" Mass Shooting
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2015/07/23/why-is-it-men-who-commit-mass-shootings/
Why is it Men Who Commit Mass Shootings?

Does it have something to do with "whiteness" or "white privilege"? I dunno, I'm not convinced of that, since I can think of John Muhammad, the Virginia Tech guy and the Binghamton shooter (and others), none of whom were white. But ALL of them were men.

Whether they're white or black or yellow men is kind of irrelevant. One is defined first by one's gender. Race comes later.

This is exactly why I've been saying since the day I came to this site -- on this issue -- that this is cultural problem. And the longer we ignore that, the longer it festers.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

They're only "homicides" in that somebody was killed. That doesn't address what makes it happen in the first place, which as I read it seems to be the point of this thread. If every killing were lumped under the term "homicide" so it could be dismissed, then a soldier who kills another soldier is also guilty of "homicide".

Motivations matter. They matter because they make things happen. To ignore the root causes is to ignore the entire problem. Lumping them all into "homicides" and then conveniently concluding "nothing to see here, move along", is the same as running away from it and burying one's head in the proverbial sand.

Statistics matter too, and statistically inner city type homicides far outnumber mass shooting homicides.

Whatever. This topic is not about homicides. It's about psychology.

Okay, let's go there then. Why do YOU think mass shootings happen? Because there happens to be a gun available?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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...

So gang members who shoot other gang members know each others names and histories and knows them personally? Or is it simply dudes wearing the wrong color or being in the wrong hood?

 

[Asclepias]

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...

So gang members who shoot other gang members know each others names and histories and knows them personally? Or is it simply dudes wearing the wrong color or being in the wrong hood?

You have this knack for making yourself look like an idiot even when unprovoked. Ultimately its about money and turf in those instances. Lots of gang bangers know each other.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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...

So gang members who shoot other gang members know each others names and histories and knows them personally? Or is it simply dudes wearing the wrong color or being in the wrong hood?

You have this knack for making yourself look like an idiot even when unprovoked. Ultimately its about money and turf in those instances. Lots of gang bangers know each other.

Lots don't.

 

[Pogo]

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.

They're only "homicides" in that somebody was killed. That doesn't address what makes it happen in the first place, which as I read it seems to be the point of this thread. If every killing were lumped under the term "homicide" so it could be dismissed, then a soldier who kills another soldier is also guilty of "homicide".

Motivations matter. They matter because they make things happen. To ignore the root causes is to ignore the entire problem. Lumping them all into "homicides" and then conveniently concluding "nothing to see here, move along", is the same as running away from it and burying one's head in the proverbial sand.

Statistics matter too, and statistically inner city type homicides far outnumber mass shooting homicides.

Whatever. This topic is not about homicides. It's about psychology.

Okay, let's go there then. Why do YOU think mass shootings happen? Because there happens to be a gun available?

Please see the additional edits to my previous post.

As a woman nobody should need to tell you how irrational male power trips can get. I'm sure you've seen your share.

Gun culture is part of it -- that facilitates the vehicle. It's quick, it's easy, you can do it from a distance, and it provides the sensory feedback of blood and guts and people screaming and running for their lives --- which all plays back to power.

That's what it's all about: Power. These events are invariably perpetrated by those who don't have it, those who perceive threats from some generic -- "blacks"... "Christians"... "Liberals"... "Muslims", "women" or sometimes on a more personal level, "the place I used to work that fired me".

 

[Asclepias]

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.

They're only "homicides" in that somebody was killed. That doesn't address what makes it happen in the first place, which as I read it seems to be the point of this thread. If every killing were lumped under the term "homicide" so it could be dismissed, then a soldier who kills another soldier is also guilty of "homicide".

Motivations matter. They matter because they make things happen. To ignore the root causes is to ignore the entire problem. Lumping them all into "homicides" and then conveniently concluding "nothing to see here, move along", is the same as running away from it and burying one's head in the proverbial sand.

Statistics matter too, and statistically inner city type homicides far outnumber mass shooting homicides.

Whatever. This topic is not about homicides. It's about psychology.

Okay, let's go there then. Why do YOU think mass shootings happen? Because there happens to be a gun available?

Obviously or they wouldnt call it mass shootings.

 

[blastoff]

Someone ask bat guano if whites have more or less to discuss about mass shootings than blacks have to discuss about their mass shootings of thousands of fellow blacks every year.

 

[Godboy]

I always noticed once you get on the thread typing in bold and other silly shit the collective average IQ plummets.

Speaking of average IQs, did you know that your people have an average IQ 20 points lower than white people?

 

[Asclepias]

I always noticed once you get on the thread typing in bold and other silly shit the collective average IQ plummets.

Speaking of average IQs, did you know that your people have an average IQ 20 points lower than white people?

My people all have 360 degree IQs. I did know your personal IQ is 100 points lower than the average white person.

 

[Godboy]

I always noticed once you get on the thread typing in bold and other silly shit the collective average IQ plummets.

Speaking of average IQs, did you know that your people have an average IQ 20 points lower than white people?

My people all have 360 degree IQs. I did know your personal IQ is 100 points lower than the average white person.

Your "come backs" are atrocious. It's like a child writes this shit for you.

 

[Mac1958]

Is there anyone, anywhere on this planet, suffering from White Guilt more than the OP?

 

[Asclepias]

I always noticed once you get on the thread typing in bold and other silly shit the collective average IQ plummets.

Speaking of average IQs, did you know that your people have an average IQ 20 points lower than white people?

My people all have 360 degree IQs. I did know your personal IQ is 100 points lower than the average white person.

Your "come backs" are atrocious. It's like a child writes this shit for you.

Your insults are atrocious. Its like a monkey smears this shit for you. My bad. I forgot you were a cave monkey.

 

[Godboy]

I always noticed once you get on the thread typing in bold and other silly shit the collective average IQ plummets.

Speaking of average IQs, did you know that your people have an average IQ 20 points lower than white people?

My people all have 360 degree IQs. I did know your personal IQ is 100 points lower than the average white person.

Your "come backs" are atrocious. It's like a child writes this shit for you.

Your insults are atrocious. Its like a monkey smears this shit for you. My bad. I forgot you were a cave monkey.

Again, it's like a child is writing this shit. You are corny as fuck.

 

[Asclepias]

I always noticed once you get on the thread typing in bold and other silly shit the collective average IQ plummets.

Speaking of average IQs, did you know that your people have an average IQ 20 points lower than white people?

My people all have 360 degree IQs. I did know your personal IQ is 100 points lower than the average white person.

Your "come backs" are atrocious. It's like a child writes this shit for you.

Your insults are atrocious. Its like a monkey smears this shit for you. My bad. I forgot you were a cave monkey.

Again, it's like a child is writing this shit. You are corny as fuck.

Again its like a monkey is writing your shit. My bad again. You are a monkey.

 

[Dan Daly]

Who told you he was Black? His father is definitely white and the guy had leaning towards the white supremacy ideology. Sorry but he is one of yours. Now I bet you just call him insane.

Uh, his mother is black. He's as black as Obama or my own grandson...but hey, don't let that stop your sick racist fantasy.

 

[Asclepias]

Who told you he was Black? His father is definitely white and the guy had leaning towards the white supremacy ideology. Sorry but he is one of yours. Now I bet you just call him insane.

Uh, his mother is black. He's as black as Obama or my own grandson...but hey, don't let that stop your sick racist fantasy.

Then he is insane. Not to mention he had Aspergers.