Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[GenesisNemesis]

When it comes to violence, there is no race, income level, gender, or identity marker that prevents someone from committing something horrific. Actions are individual choices.

The topic is more narrow than just violence, it is about mass shootings. And if you look closely enough, you will see some common traits with the types of people that commit mass shootings. It is worth studying.

Sure, Jan.

 

[TSwizzle]

When it comes to violence, there is no race, income level, gender, or identity marker that prevents someone from committing something horrific. Actions are individual choices.

The topic is more narrow than just violence, it is about mass shootings. And if you look closely enough, you will see some common traits with the types of people that commit mass shootings. It is worth studying.

Yes, angry disaffected people that shouldn't have access to firearms. The in US they are typically, but not exclusively heterosexual males.

Captain obvious has entered the chat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When it comes to violence, there is no race, income level, gender, or identity marker that prevents someone from committing something horrific. Actions are individual choices.

The topic is more narrow than just violence, it is about mass shootings. And if you look closely enough, you will see some common traits with the types of people that commit mass shootings. It is worth studying.

Yes, angry disaffected people that shouldn't have access to firearms. The in US they are typically, but not exclusively heterosexual males.

Captain obvious has entered the chat.

Can't wait for your blistering insight.

 

[TSwizzle]

When it comes to violence, there is no race, income level, gender, or identity marker that prevents someone from committing something horrific. Actions are individual choices.

The topic is more narrow than just violence, it is about mass shootings. And if you look closely enough, you will see some common traits with the types of people that commit mass shootings. It is worth studying.

I have no issue with studying patterns.

My bad, I thought you did.

I have an issue with people using statistics as a shortcut to judge individuals. Group-level data does not determine individual character.

Did someone on here make such a claim?

 

[Gospel]

Did someone on here make such a claim?

No, I was sharing my thoughts, that’s literally what message boards are for.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have an issue with people using statistics as a shortcut to judge individuals. Group-level data does not determine individual character.

Did someone on here make such a claim?

As long as we ignore your post's context, your posting history, the text you emphasized in said post, you absolutely did not make a claim like that.

You merely gaslighted it.

 

[Gospel]

Anyway, I spoke generally about how data should be handled without assigning motives to anyone. If that misusage I spoke of doesn’t apply to you, then we’re in agreement.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyway, I spoke generally about how data should be handled without assigning motives to anyone. If that misusage I spoke of doesn’t apply to you, then we’re in agreement.

Yes, that sounds reasonable and all, but I question your motives in doing such a thing.

 

[bilby]

The topic is more narrow than just violence, it is about mass shootings. And if you look closely enough, you will see some common traits with the types of people that commit mass shootings. It is worth studying.

Studying? Yes.

Spreading insinuations around in public, before any such study is concluded? Not so much.

That's an old and well worn evil.

You should refrain from it.

The most common trait of people who commit mass shootings is that they are the victims of bullying. Bullying includes (though it is certainly not limited to) the making of public insinuations, without hard evidence, that certain types of people have undesirable traits.

You are a part of the problem, and your pretence to be a part of the solution isn't fooling anyone here.

 

[TSwizzle]

I have an issue with people using statistics as a shortcut to judge individuals. Group-level data does not determine individual character.

Did someone on here make such a claim?

As long as we ignore your post's context, your posting history, the text you emphasized in said post, you absolutely did not make a claim like that.

You merely gaslighted it.

Not at all.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The topic is more narrow than just violence, it is about mass shootings. And if you look closely enough, you will see some common traits with the types of people that commit mass shootings. It is worth studying.

Studying? Yes.

Spreading insinuations around in public, before any such study is concluded? Not so much.

That's an old and well worn evil.

You should refrain from it.

The most common trait of people who commit mass shootings is that they are the victims of bullying. Bullying includes (though it is certainly not limited to) the making of public insinuations, without hard evidence, that certain types of people have undesirable traits.

You are a part of the problem, and your pretence to be a part of the solution isn't fooling anyone here.

Oh yeah? Well Biden bullied Trump. But Biden!

 

[Elixir]

if you look closely enough, you will see some common traits with the types of people that commit mass shootings.

Indeed, they predominantly look like I picture you to look: white males.

perplexity:

• Across several databases of public mass shootings since the late 1960s, about 50–55% of shooters are White.
• Roughly 20–21% are Black.
• Around 8–10% are Latino/Hispanic.
• About 6–7% are Asian, with smaller percentages identified as Middle Eastern or Native American.
• In most datasets, over 95% of mass shooters are male.

But then again I also picture you with a hangover of British accent... typical shooters, not so much.

Accent is not recorded in mass‑shooting databases, and British‑accented residents are a very small share of the U.S. population, so the best evidence‑based expectation is “probably zero or extremely close to zero,” but putting a specific number on it would be misleading.

I think what makes mass shooters stand out in complete uniformity, is that they ALL HAVE GUNS.
Don't get me wrong; guns are fun, and I'd probably have some laying around if I owned any, so I don't.
Too big a downside potential, too much to think about and I'm too irresponsible.
When there was an AR in the house for a month or two, it made me feel an unpleasant unease.
That despite being way separated from live rounds, almost the entire time.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I have an issue with people using statistics as a shortcut to judge individuals. Group-level data does not determine individual character.

Did someone on here make such a claim?

As long as we ignore your post's context, your posting history, the text you emphasized in said post, you absolutely did not make a claim like that.

You merely gaslighted it.

Not at all.

Sure, Jan.

 

[Gospel]

If we’re going to talk about patterns, let’s at least be consistent about causation. When I discuss multi-victim shootings tied to gang or neighborhood violence, I point to concentrated poverty, segregation, social disorganization, lack of opportunity and access to firearms. I absolutely do not take anybody that argues “it’s genetic” serious.

Now, when it comes to public school or mass-casualty shootings (like Columbine, Buffalo, Uvalde–type events) , the research consistently shows overwhelmingly male perpetrators, many of them white. I still wouldn't take anyone seriously that argues “it’s because they’re white.”

Because race is a demographic descriptor (from an officer's perception at that), not an explanation. Those mass shootings tend to correlate with grievance, social isolation, prior domestic violence, ideological radicalization, and access to firearms. That’s what I look at. If I'm going to reject racial essentialism in one direction, I reject it in all directions. I can’t speak for everyone though, that would kind of defeat my own point.

 

[Tigers!]

If we’re going to talk about patterns, let’s at least be consistent about causation. When I discuss multi-victim shootings tied to gang or neighborhood violence, I point to concentrated poverty, segregation, social disorganization, lack of opportunity and access to firearms.

If you could combine the terms "lack of opportunity" and "access to firearms" to make a new phrase "lack of opportunity of access to firearms"
you might begin to get somewhere.
Just keep hearing of all those shooting deaths so often.

 

[Gospel]

If we’re going to talk about patterns, let’s at least be consistent about causation. When I discuss multi-victim shootings tied to gang or neighborhood violence, I point to concentrated poverty, segregation, social disorganization, lack of opportunity and access to firearms.

If you could combine the terms "lack of opportunity" and "access to firearms" to make a new phrase "lack of opportunity of access to firearms"
you might begin to get somewhere.
Just keep hearing of all those shooting deaths so often.

If this is about crafting a punchy one-liner, by all means. Just spare me the notification. But since you have me here, I’d genuinely like to see the data supporting the claim that more guns lead to fewer shooting deaths. You mind?

 

[Toni]

I’m guess

When it comes to violence, there is no race, income level, gender, or identity marker that prevents someone from committing something horrific. Actions are individual choices.

The topic is more narrow than just violence, it is about mass shootings. And if you look closely enough, you will see some common traits with the types of people that commit mass shootings. It is worth studying.

I have no issue with studying patterns. I have an issue with people using statistics as a shortcut to judge individuals. Group-level data does not determine individual character. That’s not some radical idea, it’s the same principle embedded in the nearly 240-year-old U.S. Constitution: people are judged as individuals, not as members of a category. It just isn’t always applied consistently.

I’m guessing that TSwizzle does have a problem with it being pointed out that most violent crime in the US is committed by white males.

It’s easier to promote statistical categories being applied to individuals as long as those categories are not applied to oneself, or at least in any unflattering or inconvenient way.

 

[TSwizzle]

I’m guess

When it comes to violence, there is no race, income level, gender, or identity marker that prevents someone from committing something horrific. Actions are individual choices.

The topic is more narrow than just violence, it is about mass shootings. And if you look closely enough, you will see some common traits with the types of people that commit mass shootings. It is worth studying.

I have no issue with studying patterns. I have an issue with people using statistics as a shortcut to judge individuals. Group-level data does not determine individual character. That’s not some radical idea, it’s the same principle embedded in the nearly 240-year-old U.S. Constitution: people are judged as individuals, not as members of a category. It just isn’t always applied consistently.

I’m guessing that TSwizzle does have a problem with it being pointed out that most violent crime in the US is committed by white males.

I don't have a problem with that if it is factually true.

 

[Gospel]

I’m guess

When it comes to violence, there is no race, income level, gender, or identity marker that prevents someone from committing something horrific. Actions are individual choices.

The topic is more narrow than just violence, it is about mass shootings. And if you look closely enough, you will see some common traits with the types of people that commit mass shootings. It is worth studying.

I have no issue with studying patterns. I have an issue with people using statistics as a shortcut to judge individuals. Group-level data does not determine individual character. That’s not some radical idea, it’s the same principle embedded in the nearly 240-year-old U.S. Constitution: people are judged as individuals, not as members of a category. It just isn’t always applied consistently.

I’m guessing that TSwizzle does have a problem with it being pointed out that most violent crime in the US is committed by white males.

I don't have a problem with that if it is factually true.

It depends on the crime. In raw totals, whites are arrested more overall because they’re a much larger share of the population. But for homicide in some years, Black Americans account for a higher number of arrests despite being a smaller percentage of the population. That reality genuinely frustrates me, and I’ve already laid out my views on the social and structural factors that contribute to it.

 

[Tigers!]

If we’re going to talk about patterns, let’s at least be consistent about causation. When I discuss multi-victim shootings tied to gang or neighborhood violence, I point to concentrated poverty, segregation, social disorganization, lack of opportunity and access to firearms.

If you could combine the terms "lack of opportunity" and "access to firearms" to make a new phrase "lack of opportunity of access to firearms"
you might begin to get somewhere.
Just keep hearing of all those shooting deaths so often.

If this is about crafting a punchy one-liner, by all means. Just spare me the notification. But since you have me here, I’d genuinely like to see the data supporting the claim that more guns lead to fewer shooting deaths. You mind?

When did I claim that more guns lead to fewer shooting deaths?
I have been absolutely consistent for years that you yanks need to reduce massively access to guns.