dickslapthestate:mojrim:amarretto-cowboy:dickslapthestate:mojrim:dickslapthestate:mojrim:crusadersof

dickslapthestate:mojrim:amarretto-cowboy:dickslapthestate:mojrim:dickslapthestate:mojrim:crusadersofthegreatmemewar:But, it’s perfectly okay when liberals blame straight white men.Confused?  Permit me to illuminate the matter.1.  America’s gun regulations are written and enforced almost exclusively by white men.2.  All but a tiny handful of mass shooters are white men.That’s the thing about social science research: nothing is ever 100% but 99% gives us a good place to start.> All but a tiny handful of mass shooters are white men.I guess it’s that time a year again folks! Time for another edition ofMass Shootings and RaceAs always, the data i brought to us by  MotherJones’ database of mass shooters, so accusations of cherry picking or bias can be taken up with them. MotherJones is staunchly anti-gun and that’s why I used their data.Dating back to at least 2005, the FBI and leading criminologists essentially defined a mass shooting as a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed. We adopted that baseline for fatalities when we gathered data in 2012 on three decades worth of cases. […] In January 2013, a mandate for federal investigation of mass shootings authorized by President Barack Obama lowered that baseline to three or more victims killed. Accordingly, we include attacks dating from January 2013 in which three or more victims were killed. We can see that slightly more than half of mass shootings have been carried out by white people. But of course, the United States is primarily white, so let’s break down the racial demographics of the country.According to the 2017 Census:The comparison between total population demographics and mass shooter demographics are as follows:White people make up 61.3% of the population and are 57.1% of mass shooters.Black people make up 13.3% of the population and 16.3% of mass shooters.Asians make up 5.7% of the population and account for 8.2% of mass shootings.Hispanics are 17.8% of the population and account for 7.1% of mass shootings.So most mass shooters are white just because most of the people in the US are white, not because they’re more likely to become a mass shooter. When the population proportions are taken into consideration, white people are slightly underrepresented in mass shootings and black people are slightly overrepresented. Asians are very overrepresented and Hispanics are drastically underrepresented.All that being said, I do understand this analysis isn’t 100% accurate, since the mass shooting data goes back to 1982 and the racial demographics I used were just from 2017. If someone wants to do a better job, then by all means. @dickslapthestateYou’re cherry picking, just like MJ.  Let’s follow along with the FBI, shall we?  That is: Four or more victims with no direct connection to the shooter. and not a product of gang warfare or associated criminal activity.  The sort of shootings you are larding your data with include drive byes, family murder/suicides, and gang assassinations.Try to keep up.I already gave you the dataset. They link to the methodology on that page but apparently, I have to link that directly too.Our research focused on indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker. We exclude shootings stemming from more conventionally motivated crimes such as armed robbery or gang violenceWell, this is embarrassing…What was that you were saying about keeping up?@mojrim haven’t I debunked your nonsense enough? You keep embarrassing yourself.Take some time, put your political bias aside and try taking an honest look at the world.It’s what I did. A decade ago, I sounded like you, and just like you, I kept getting my ass handed to me in debates.Actually you haven’t come close @amarretto-cowboy   See, I’ve been following mass shootings for the last 20 years and I know when I see manipulated data. Your friend @dickslapthestate was using a different data set which (a) counted 3+ victims and (b) didn’t control for gang violence and robberies.  The one he linked is closer to the truth but requires a bit of editing for MJ’s political bias.  A quick pass shows a couple false inclusions, such as Omar Mateen and the Farook couple in San Bernadno, both of which were clearly political terrorism.  So, ta da!  Mostly white guys.You know that it’s been me linking the same dataset this whole time, right? @amarretto-cowboy hasn’t linked any data here…> I know when I see manipulated datayou could rely on your psychic powers or you could you know… look at the data and run the numbers yourself. you clearly don’t know when you see manipulated data because your spider sense is tingling when there’s nothing there.>(a) counted 3+ victims I don’t know if by “victims” you mean casualties or fatalities. If you meant the former, then you’re wrong. It did indeed count 3+ fatalities because there was a mandate in 2012 changing the definition of mass killing in the US Code from 4 or more fatalities to 3 or more from that point forward. For the years 1982 - 2011, they used the definition of 4+ fatalities (excluding the shooter of course).This is all quoted in the original post, so I don’t see what’s manipulative about naming a definition and then sticking to it. I think 4+ fatalities is a more fair definition but it was leftists who wanted to increase what is called a mass shooting helped push this change.I mean.. I could limit the data to only the incidents with 4+ fatalities if you want.Oh, look. The proportion of white shooters GOES DOWN. Do you get tired of shooting yourself in the foot my dude?> (b) didn’t control for gang violence and robberiesI don’t even know what to fucking say to this. This is clearly not true and all you have to do is scroll up to see the evidence of this.I reblogged your post responding to me linking you to the evidence that this dataset DOES control for gang violence and robberies. I not only linked it but screenshotted the website stating they controlled for gang violence and robberies.I underlined the bit where they stated they control for gang violence and robberiesI then repeated their statement and bolded the part where it’s stated gang violence and robberies are controlled for.I don’t know how much more clear I can make it that my dataset DOES control for gang violence and robberies. Anyone observing this exchange can click on my source and clearly see THERE ARE NO GANG SHOOTINGS OR ROBBERY RELATED SHOOTINGS IN ANY OF THE EXAMPLES.>A quick pass shows a couple false inclusions, such as Omar Mateen and the Farook couple in San Bernadno, both of which were clearly political terrorism. Let’s go back to the definition YOU cited to me, shall we?Four or more victims with no direct connection to the shooter. and not a product of gang warfare or associated criminal activity. How is an indiscriminate mass shooting that kills 4 or more victims, not an indiscriminate mass shooting that kills 4 or more victims because it’s politically motivated?>So, ta da!  Mostly white guys. The two political shootings you pointed out were counted in the “Other” racial category, so even if you eliminate them, then that would not change my comparison between White, Black, Asian, and Latino shooters. In fact, it would probably make the proportions change greater for the minorities since it takes less absolute percentage change to equal a greater change relative to the much smaller minority population.can you catch up, please? this is painful to watch… -- source link

More pics about