Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Politesse]

They are most certainly anti-Black. But they call it anti-Woke, because they don't want to lose the support of the "decent folk" of Americana-land.

Those are not the same thing. Not by a longshot. Being anti-black is being against a whole race of people. Being anti-woke is being against a particular political ideology associated with anti-police riots of 2014-2020.
To conflate the two is highly disingenuous.

Wait, did you just complain about something being highly disingenuous but also conflatie "woke" with anti-police riots when the term is much much broader?

I should bring up his proposed definition of Woke the next time he tries to apply it to aome random-ass thing...

 

[Derec]

Of course it mother-fucking is. And they do it all the goddamned time.

No. It is you who is conflating stuff. You think that everybody who is against your woke, leftist ideology on race must be "anti-black".

 

[Derec]

Wait, did you just complain about something being highly disingenuous

Politesse was definitely conflating opposition to a particular ideology with anti-black racism.

but also conflatie "woke" with anti-police riots when the term is much much broader?

I did not say it was not broader. But the term "woke" is definitely associated with Ferguson and other #BLM rioting. In fact, that's how the term entered the mainstream lexicon. Example:
In the Aftermath of Ferguson, Stay Angry and Stay Woke

 

[Derec]

To choose voting districts grounded in race and ethnic identities, because those groups happen to vote for "woke" politics, is purely racist.

Politesse wasn't saying anything about choosing voting districts. It was about his (or her? I keep forgetting) claim that Proud Boys must be "racist" because they are opposed to woke ideology.

In most cases, racial demographics is the basis for drawing those maps,

Politesse's claim has nothing to do with drawing maps, and districting has nothing to do with this thread. I have no idea where you are coming from. That said, correlation with racial demographics != being based on racial demographics. That said also, I would like SCOTUS to ban partisan redistricting too, so that point would be moot anyway. But in any case, none of it has anything to do with this thread or with Politesse's claims.

 

[Derec]

Well, yeah. When there's a mass shooting every day and the government refuses to take any substantive action except prayer to prevent more shootings from happening, it tends to raise questions about the motivations of those involved.

That is not true. A compromise gun bill was passed just last year.
Biden signs gun safety bill into law
And state governments are passing anti-gun laws all the time. Many of those are unconstitutional though. And focus on banning the types of guns responsible for a tiny fraction of all homicides. Banning AR15s is not quite as useless as prayer, but nearly so.

 

[Derec]

The Black Lives Matter movement started out in the black community, but it went viral. Little known fact: in the US, only roughly 14% of the population is black, so a viral movement wasn't likely to appear as only black for long. Repoman observed that it was mostly white in the Seattle area, but that area is roughly only 8% black. It is, of course, Democratic and very liberal, which would make BLM even more popular among whites than elsewhere in the country.

Indeed. And that is true in cities other than very white cities like Portland and Seattle. Minneapolis is ~20% black, but the white population is very left, so many of them are #BLMers also. Which is why it is nonsense to assume that when a white person burns shit down at a #BLM riot they must be a right winger. Most likely they are a white ally of the #BLM movement.

The following article from 2021 shows that those favoring the BLM movement included 83% of blacks, 47% of whites, 60% of Hispanics, and 68% of Asians. Overall, 55% of Americans supported the movement.

Those percentages are concerning. #BLM is an extremist, anti-police, divisive and violent movement started by "trained Marxists" who take their inspiration from 1960s/70s radicals like terrorist and murderer Joanne Chesimard.

 

[Politesse]

You think that everybody who is against your woke, leftist ideology on race must be "anti-black".

No, I think people who hate Blacks but pretend the disagreement is ideological are anti-Black.

 

[Derec]

I have eyes and so do you, there were tons of white people in the antifa marches I lurked in Seattle.

Yes, Antifa is a mostly white phenomenon. Unlike #BLM proper. Although a lot of people are both.

Antifa has a sensible strategy of denial unlike the idiot Proud Boys who are constantly making all of their moves documentable.

 

[Derec]

No, I think people who hate Blacks but pretend the disagreement is ideological are anti-Black.

And you think they hate blacks because they disagree with your ideology. Circular reasoning.

 

[Derec]

I believe you when you say you don't think the Proud Boys aren't white supremacists.

Well, their leader is 100% blacker than Talcum X. So I really do not think they are "white supremacists".

 

[Politesse]

No, I think people who hate Blacks but pretend the disagreement is ideological are anti-Black.

And you think they hate blacks because they disagree with your ideology. Circular reasoning.

What "ideology"? Opposing gun violence?

 

[Derec]

You keep failing to tell that the victims were locked in a lecture hall by the killer. Shooting fish in a barrel. It's not equivalent to shooting people in an outlet mall parking lot.

Doesn't matter. It disproves Elixir's categorical statement.
Note also that Garcia had a rifle and a handgun on him. Did he shoot only the rifle? Both?
Rifles like AR15 do have advantages (power, range), but so do handguns (lighter, more wieldy, can be easily concealed on one's person). Something like the Las Vegas shooting at significant range you need a rifle for, but shooting a bunch of people at a mall could have been done with a couple of handguns and you'd likely have a very similar number of casualties and dead.

 

[Derec]

What "ideology"?

Whites being "oppressors", blacks and certain minorities being "oppressed". Standard movement leftist claptrap.

 

[Derec]

I toiled and sacrificed and nobody is going to take away my white privilege!

Where have you been the last 60 years or so? Privilege is now in being classified as a POC.

 

[Politesse]

What "ideology"?

Whites being "oppressors", blacks and certain minorities being "oppressed". Standard movement leftist claptrap.

I do not believe that racial discrimination in the US is as simple or clear-cut as you are claiming, nor do I see how it relates to the issue at hand. Whether or not all whites are "oppressors" has no bearing on whether heavily armed far right hate groups are... well, heavily armed far right hate groups. They could be the tiniest of minorities, and still be a threat to the health and welfare of all Americans.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wait, did you just complain about something being highly disingenuous

Politesse was definitely conflating opposition to a particular ideology with anti-black racism.

but also conflatie "woke" with anti-police riots when the term is much much broader?

I did not say it was not broader. But the term "woke" is definitely associated with Ferguson and other #BLM rioting. In fact, that's how the term entered the mainstream lexicon. Example:
In the Aftermath of Ferguson, Stay Angry and Stay Woke

So that is a "yes" to my question then. That'd been a much quicker reply, but I'm happy that at least you are pragmatic about it.

 

[Toni]

They are most certainly anti-Black. But they call it anti-Woke, because they don't want to lose the support of the "decent folk" of Americana-land.

Those are not the same thing. Not by a longshot. Being anti-black is being against a whole race of people. Being anti-woke is being against a particular political ideology associated with anti-police riots of 2014-2020.
To conflate the two is highly disingenuous.

I think it is naive to not see that they are different severities of the same thing.

Why exactly did the term woke get adopted as the big bad by the alt right, now nearly indistinguishable from the regular right wing?

The Origins of the Term ‘Woke’ Had Nothing to Do With Today’s Identity Politics Wars

It comes from an essay that is a work of cultural description rather than a battle cry.

thedispatch.com

 

[Copernicus]

The Black Lives Matter movement started out in the black community, but it went viral. Little known fact: in the US, only roughly 14% of the population is black, so a viral movement wasn't likely to appear as only black for long. Repoman observed that it was mostly white in the Seattle area, but that area is roughly only 8% black. It is, of course, Democratic and very liberal, which would make BLM even more popular among whites than elsewhere in the country.

Indeed. And that is true in cities other than very white cities like Portland and Seattle. Minneapolis is ~20% black, but the white population is very left, so many of them are #BLMers also. Which is why it is nonsense to assume that when a white person burns shit down at a #BLM riot they must be a right winger. Most likely they are a white ally of the #BLM movement.

Your assumption is that I would make such an assumption. I would not. Whoever participates in a BLM rally is a member of the movement, not some kind of "ally". You think of BLM as purely a race-based movement whose members have to be black, but it is not anything like that. If someone in a BLM rally breaks the law, that person should be arrested and prosecuted regardless of their skin color or politics. Generally speaking, BLM rallies are not race riots and do not devolve into violence, so I hope that you are not making that assumption.

The following article from 2021 shows that those favoring the BLM movement included 83% of blacks, 47% of whites, 60% of Hispanics, and 68% of Asians. Overall, 55% of Americans supported the movement.

Those percentages are concerning. #BLM is an extremist, anti-police, divisive and violent movement started by "trained Marxists" who take their inspiration from 1960s/70s radicals like terrorist and murderer Joanne Chesimard.

Your characterization of the BLM movement is utterly absurd. There are three people who claim to have started the movement, and one of them once said in an interview that she and one of the other founders were "trained Marxists". That is the basis for your nonsense. It does not make the BLM movement itself Marxist or even related to Marxism. Making such a claim is a textbook example of a  genetic fallacy. The movement itself is no more divisive than any political movement in existence, including the Republican and Democratic parties. And it most certainly is not violent, even if violence-prone people sometimes try to co-opt peaceful protests. Nor is BLM connected with Antifa, as often alleged in rightwing propaganda. The movement itself does not advocate for violence and insurrection in any way. Participants in rallies are exercising their constitutional right to protest peacefully. The position of most people is that lawbreakers should be punished regardless of which side of a political dispute they are on. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Given how rarely (by comparison) AR-15s and similar rifles are used to kill people, I do not think such sufficient reason is given.

Let’s look at dead people per gun manufactured, by gun type.

I think that would be a very good idea. However, as with all gun death issues we need to separate suicide from homicide as they have very different driving forces and thus an average is not remotely representative.
....
Looking at homicides I find: Handguns: 6,368 for 2019 (the last year I'm seeing in the table I pulled up). Rifles: 364. Sales for Jan 2019 (reasonably representative, the table is per month): Handguns: 567,970. Long guns (which would include shotguns): 382,090. Since I'm stuck lumping in shotguns I'll go back and add in the 200 shotgun murders for 2019.

Thus for handguns I find 1.12%. Long guns, .148%

The deaths per gun are nearly 10x as high for handguns.

Looking at some ancient data on suicides likewise finds handguns disproportionately represented. (Which isn't a surprise given the difficulty of shooting yourself in a vital spot with a long-barreled weapon.)

It is not useful to limit “gun type” to long gun vs short gun. And it is disingenuous.
No one has advocated control over all long guns, so your math does not answer the question at hand.

It was fairly straightforward to infer that “number of homicides by AR15 divided by number of AR15s” should be compared to “number of hiomicides by pistol (pick the kind that is most often used in murders) divided by the total number of those guns produced” and could be compared to “number of homicides by bolt-action rifle divided by number of bolt action rifles.”

Then it has meaning. Your long guns v short guns does not, and I will assume you knew that when you wrote it.

I lumped rifles with shotguns because I wasn't finding production data that separated rifles from shotguns, let alone singling out AR-15s. I do not know how the production breaks between rifles and shotguns, from what I see on the wall at the local Cabela's (outdoor store, generally oriented towards hunting/fishing, but lots of things remain the same when going into the backcountry, whether armed with a camera or a gun) it's mostly rifles.

How about addressing the fact that handguns are 10x as likely to kill?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

“number of homicides by AR15 divided by number of AR15s”

… which of course becomes a more and more benign indicator with every new AR sold. Obviously we need to buy a shitload more AR15s to drive that ratio into irrelevance!

I think that a more interesting denominator should be something like "number of AR15s used in reported mass shootings". These guns are selected by mass murderers in part because of their usefulness in shooting a lot of people in a short time, and I think that the statistics will bear that out. Most people who own the guns are never going to commit crimes with them, but that doesn't reduce their significance as a danger to public safety. Most people who own AR15s will never use them to harm another person, but they are still the gun that seems most popular among mass shooters.

Mass shootings are fundamentally an exercise in choosing notoriety over being anonymous. Thus expect symbols regardless of whether they are useful or not. While most mass shootings are thought about for a fair amount of time before they happen there is usually little meaningful planning. Rarely do they seem have a remotely effective plan and it typically falls apart at the first sign of resistance. (After all, about the only place to actually learn about how to do it is from ISIS.) Even the Las Vegas shooter, who seemed to have planned far better than most, still quit shooting the moment resistance showed up even though he successfully drove them off.