Another Mass Shooting

So, there are misperceptions on both sides; and, I am sure, most intentionally.  

However, I really think it is a lot of preconceived notions to support their ‘political-leanings’.

People should do more research to fully understand a topic instead of just assuming they know what the problems are.

When the data shows something it is much easier to discuss it and try to figure a way to come up with solution(s0 to fix the problem.

The issue is when the problem is researched and a probable cause is found, people try to be too politically-sensitive to address the problem.  

People nowadays try to be too politically correct about social issues and this can have drastic effects on society.

Violent gun-crime is, maybe, the most obvious one.  Few people want to really admit the root cause of the issue.  Therefore, it is hard to get the Left and the Right to come together to see why this has become the result.

No one wants to look at what policies might have caused this or what might be done to fix it.

It is very sad and does a whole group of the population a disservice.  

The sad part is this head-in-the-sand attitude is even more harmful to that group and seems to exacerbate the problem. 

right       most r        in fact the vast majority r      but clearly not all

but almost all the southern states r definitely red

c     ru  m    b         s

But the mass-shootings and the coverage, or lack thereof, was the only reason I posted the original article.  The rest I have addressed many times before on gun violence.  But since it was brought up again I added some of that.

I thought maybe it would generate a better discussion.  

Carry on. 

Ok. I'm gonna attempt to give this response the attention I had planned to a couple of days ago. Bear with me.

First off, I would like to address this new sub-topic.

@KellyM_1964

I don't know if you have spent much time, if any, in our southern states, or how familiar you are with the conditions facing the southern population, but it's nothing to deduce into political forum fodder. The south is fucked. It has literally never rebounded from reconstruction, with the exception of a handful of cities. And even in these cities, there are some grimy, gutter, rough neighborhoods. And as I said before, the failure of these places has been a 100% bipartisan effort. The failure is a result of decades of failed policies on either side of the aisle, and of politicians, both red and blue, who have done a disservice to their constituents. There's no reason any one in America should be living in such conditions. I wasn't exaggerating when I said that the majority of the south outside of major cities, and some of the neighborhoods in major cities, legit look like 3rd world countries. Jumping on a forum and making posts about "the murder rate in red states" is insensitive, and uninformed. There are plenty of blue politicians that have contributed to the failure of these places. Please don't trivialize it. I have respect for you and I believe you are better than that.

@Raiders22

 Now to the topic that originally made me respond to this thread. As promised, I intend to unpack what I was referring to when I mentioned being in agreement with an overarching point. Also what I disagreed with and disproved earlier in the thread. And finally I'll address why none of it really matters in the context of this thread.

First off, we were talking about mass shooters, and gun violence et al. I believe the point being made, and granted, I haven't followed this thread pretty much at all, I believe the point was that the media likes to craft the face of mass shootings. The face of gun violence in America. And that face is the disgruntled white male, the racist white male, the incel white male, shooting up a school, a church, a night club, etc. This bogeyman with an "AR-15" variant, which is to say any of the multitude of assault "style" rifles on the market chambered in .223, as actual AR-15s have not been a thing for quite sometime. The media makes this style of mass shooting the face of gun violence in America, and that is a falsehood. The fact is that the majority of gun violence in America takes place in the low-income neighborhoods of our major cities, and the underdeveloped, underserved communities of the American south and mid-west. That the majority of the perpetrators are young Black and Hispanic men. That the majority of the victims are young Black and Hispanic men. And that the majority of these shootings utilize small arms, with Glocks becoming the favorite of the streets. Most of the ghost guns you here about on the news are based on the Glock platform, and the untold truth is that most of the parts for these "ghost' guns are actually manufactured by Glock. So the media focusing on the random mass shootings/massacres which, granted, have become to common, but focusing on these crimes ignores the real problem. That young, black and brown men are killing each other in these streets every day. This is a matter that hits home for me. This needs to be the headline. This needs to be the focus of our elected officials. If this was a point that was being made, it is the point I was referring to when I mentioned that I agreed.

@StumpTownStu

 "I haven't followed this threat that closely but correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't one of the more liberal posters keep a running tally of ALL mass shootings?"

I am somewhat confused about this part?  How do you not know what thread you were responding to?

What do you mean that you are not following this thread?  You have multiple posts on here starting at the beginning.  

I had not posted in here but still have a general sense of the type of posting that has been going on.  That is why I put the article and quote in here to start with.  Because that is exactly what has been going on in this thread.

I just assumed since you were replying to a post in this thread you knew which thread it was.

I also assumed since you have so many posts in the thread you had a sense of the thread.

Is that wrong?

@Raiders22

 Now to what I disagreed with, with what I chimed in to refute. You posted a quote, I'm assuming from another poster but again, I have not followed this thread. The quote alludes to the media having an agenda in their coverage of mass shootings. That they focus on white male shooters with AR-15s. This is absolute bullshit. It's just version of the "...poor white guy. The media hates me and makes me that bad guy" trope. As I stated earlier, the coverage of mass shootings by the media is affected my three variables. Number of victims. Nature of victims. Nature of the shooting. Number if victims is self explanatory. Nature if victims usually deals with age. We're they kids? Were they old folks? Nature of the crime is slightly more nuanced but usually deals with all of the above along with location, timing, motive, etc. Did it take place at a school, a church, etc. Was it completely random. It's a shock value thing. The only agenda the media has is ratings (not entirely true) but for sake of this conversation, they are going to report on the most shocking crimes, regardless of the race of the shooter, or the weapon used. The media is concerned with how shocking, how senseless, etc.a shooting is. Is a group of gangbangers targets another group of gangbangers outside of a bar on a Friday night, it won't make the national news because it isn't shocking enough for a national audience. It will lead a local news cast but even this it ceases being a story in a day or so. The average person says, "Well, gangbangers shoot each other." They can make sense of it. When someone randomly walks into a school and shoots a bunch of children they have no relation to, the average person can't make any sense of it. It's senseless. It's shocking. So it becomes national news.

I listed numerous, recent mass shootings that were huge national news stories that don't fit the "white guy with an AR-15" narrative. I would venture to even say a majority of recent mass shootings don't fit this narrative. Sure, some did but we have also had Black, Hispanic, and Asian shooters. We have even had a trans shooter. All were still huge stories. How could this be if the media has a fixation on white males with AR-15s? It's because that's bullshit and the media doesn't have a fixation. They report the stories that are the most shocking. There is nothing shocking or nationally noteworthy about a random bar shooting where two are three people are killed, even if maybe it should be, as all gun violence is horrible and deserves equal coverage.

I'll leave you with one more national news story, what I'll refer to as a case study for the purpose of this thread/topic, that proofs my pint that shock value s the main and determining factor for National news coverage of a shooting. A few months back a young lady attempted to enter the wrong car and the man in the car shot her. It became a huge story. The shooter wasn't a white male. He was Hispanic. The weapon was not a rifle. It was a small arm. There wasn't even numerous victims. There were two shot, one of which died. Yet it was still a huge story. Why? It became a huge story because is was shocking. And especially senseless. The victim(s) were young ladies. This checks the youth box, though not a "kid". The female box. The attractiveness box. This makes it all more interesting to a national audience. Remember I mentioned nature of the victim(s) as being a factor. More than all of this though, it was especially senseless. All the victim did was attempt to enter the wrong car. It wasn't like the driver feared for his life. This was a cheerleader. She acknowledged her mistake and threw her hands up. He shot her anyway. This is particularly shocking and THAT is why it was covered nationally.

Changing the subject. This thread has over a thousand posts. How many are mine? Five? That would constitute not following close.

@StumpTownStu

This is very, very relative and extremely vague.  What exact policies do you think have done what you think you have seen?  

I have been to many cities in the South in every state and they are no different than cities in the North, or anywhere else.  Especially the inner cities.  The other parts of the cities are not necessarily 'grimy, gutter, rough'.  I am not sure you want to compare San Antonio to Portland or Nashville to San Francisco or Orlando to Philadelphia, Charlotte to Oakland, etc., etc.  It is way too general when you say things like that.  There are certainly exceptions.  But I do not think it is right to judge a whole swath of folks by some bad ones.

As far as comparing them to 'third-world' countries, that is complete generalization and hyperbole.  I would suggest that you travel to some 'legit third-word' countries and see the difference.  I have been to some of the worst places in the world and I can tell you straight up that the worst places you guys have in the USA is better than those places, by far!  That is as far as the living conditions and the standard of living.  There are some that may be more 'deadly' or 'violent' -- but not living conditions.  If you think you have cities there that you classify as grimy and gutter, I certainly would want to know what you call some of the other cities around the harsher parts of the world.

As far as policies, these are generally Democratic policies -- especially in the South, but inner cities elsewhere -- that have put the folks in those parts of the cities in those conditions.  This has been discussed in many other threads.

Way more Democratic-led cities with their policies have done this to the folks than the Republican Party and their policies.  This is with cities in the South and all other parts of the USA.

I would want way more clarification with data about what you mean when you group a whole section of a first-world country as a third-world country. 

@Raiders22

 Bro, I just checked. This thread is year old. I posted some in the very beginning because it was Midnight's, and I respect and admire him. I've maybe made a post here are there but I really have not followed or posted much in this thread over the course of it's year long life. And whether I did or didn't doesn't negate the fact that you quoted a point that I showed to be absolute bullshit. And when I showed it to be bullshit, and you knew you couldn't deny it, all you could say was, "Well, those other stories dies out faster." which is also absolute bullshit.

"I have been to many cities in the South in every state and they are no different than cities in the North, or anywhere else."

If you are making a statement like this, then you haven't been to many cities in the south.

Way more than that.  Even on the first few pages alone. But you have posts all through the thread.  I dunno, man, maybe you get tired or sleepy at night and forget where you are posting.  Haha!  There are a lot of different threads on here, so it can be confusing I guess.

But nonetheless, you know who is in these threads and who started this thread and you know their stances.  So, you do not even have to pay close attention at all to know the tone in here.

@StumpTownStu

 "Now to what I disagreed with, with what I chimed in to refute. You posted a quote, I'm assuming from another poster but again, I have not followed this thread."

No sir.  I posted from an article and I linked it.  Then I posted a comment about the article from the article.

"Way more" is not a number. This thread has 1400 posts. This thread is a year old. If I have so many posts, prove it. How many?

Is this not your post? This is what I responded to. Maybe you post late and forget.

I dug back through. As I said, this thread is over a year old. I was active in the thread during the first couple weeks, and then I become a ghost. That's definitively "not following a thread". What does any of that matter as it pertains to this subject though?.

@StumpTownStu

 "First off, we were talking about mass shooters, and gun violence et al. I believe the point being made, and granted, I haven't followed this thread pretty much at all, I believe the point was that the media likes to craft the face of mass shootings. The face of gun violence in America. And that face is the disgruntled white male, the racist white male, the incel white male, shooting up a school, a church, a night club, etc. This bogeyman with an "AR-15" variant, which is to say any of the multitude of assault "style" rifles on the market chambered in .223, as actual AR-15s have not been a thing for quite sometime. The media makes this style of mass shooting the face of gun violence in America, and that is a falsehood. The fact is that the majority of gun violence in America takes place in the low-income neighborhoods of our major cities, and the underdeveloped, underserved communities of the American south and mid-west. That the majority of the perpetrators are young Black and Hispanic men. That the majority of the victims are young Black and Hispanic men. And that the majority of these shootings utilize small arms, with Glocks becoming the favorite of the streets. Most of the ghost guns you here about on the news are based on the Glock platform, and the untold truth is that most of the parts for these "ghost' guns are actually manufactured by Glock. So the media focusing on the random mass shootings/massacres which, granted, have become to common, but focusing on these crimes ignores the real problem. That young, black and brown men are killing each other in these streets every day. This is a matter that hits home for me. This needs to be the headline. This needs to be the focus of our elected officials. If this was a point that was being made, it is the point I was referring to when I mentioned that I agreed."

Yes.  I agree with all of this and sometimes the issues are confused.  But I was addressing JUST the mass-shooting.  Yes, the Media wants to frame it and that is the face they put on it.  Yes, the majority of the gun violence is what you mention.  BUT that is not what the article was about.  It was about the mass-shooter violence and not the 'regular' gun violence.  The Media would have you believe that it is out of proportion by white males, when, in fact, it is out of proportion by black males.  

The issue is that the media make sure to post it when it IS a white male or when it is a school or theater.  BUT the mass-shootings by black males is not covered and is more-or-less 'accepted' as 'normal'.  That is the sad and distressing part.  This lack of media coverage deflects the public from seeing there is a bigger problem and pushing the political and civic leaders to address it.  

The they do like everyone else does and cloud the issue.  The need to confront the issue and try to solve the problem.

You are also correct that they make sure to mention 'AR' or 'assault-rifle' whenever they can.  Now they just say 'assault-style' without even knowing what that means. Etc., etc.

Absolutely they will cover the extraordinary.  I am not asking to list exceptions.  All that does is prove the general rule.  The everyday non-sensational do not get the coverage.  But sure the VA Tech, trans, or any unusual get abnormal coverage.  BUT when it is 'normal' white or 'normal' black mass-shooters -- THAT is where you see the difference.  You cannot cloud THAT issue with an Hispanic or Trans, or Asian or Muslim instance; no one was comparing those at all.

Do you understand what I am saying?  It is not that complicated really AND it is quite obvious AND I followed it up with data and links and quotes.  So, it is NOT my speculation. 

Because you have been in here enough to know the posters in here.  You were in here at the beginning and have been in here off and on.  These posters did not all of sudden change up.  You have seen enough of the posts in here to see what stories they key in on.

@Raiders22

 You keep mentioning this article. I'm not sure of which article you are referring, and I have probably missed something as just as I haven't followed this thread much in the last 11 months, I also haven't in the last 24 hours. What brought me back to this thread was your highlighted quote. To alluded to discrepancy in the medias reporting of mass shootings based on race and style of weapon. I stated this to be a baseless falsehood and listed numerous extensively covered recent stories that don't fit this narrative. That was the only point I had set out to make and I made it.

There's no such thing as a normal mass shooter. The white males who are covered become national news because they are particularly noteworthy, usually because of the number of victims. They aren't dedicating national coverage to random white guys shooting two or three people and you know it.

And yes, I do know the posters here. If you read my early posts, I'm taking a counter stance to most of them. Yet that isn't what brought me back to this thread. Your posted quote, which I highlighted,is what brought me back because it is utter bullshit.

Several on first few pages.  Then several even this year from Mar 28,29,30. More on Apr 10,12,17,19,30 May 4.

I mean that seems enough to be keeping up with the thread enough to have sense of its theme.  You might be the biggest poster outside of the cheerleaders in here.  Even if you pop in from time to time -- trust me it has NOT changed. 

@StumpTownStu

Probably every major one and of course several of the smaller ones.  But the bigger ones would be the ones that have the inner-city violence and might be considered bad enough to be called 'third-world'.

But that is absolutely WHY I CAN make a statement like that -- I have been to many of them.  That is why I can say they are NOT third-world type cities.  They may not be ideal for the USA.  But that is a different debate.

Way too easy to overgeneralize.