No it is not an accepted definition It is a hypocritical ideologically motivated lie used to cherry pick only the data you like Gang shooting are included in mass shootings
Leave it to the liberal media to hide the fact that most white supremacists are black. I guess diversity isn't always good.
I agree with you completely on this - in other incidents - the media has taken to not mentioning the religious background of the perpetrators in instances when the perp is Islamist in some Euro nations. Here - even after 911 and all the attention to terrorism by Al Qaeda and other individuals or groups of the same ilk - we are not supposed to use the word "Radical Islam". This is correct - the term "radical Islam" generalizes terrorist activities over all Muslims - and it targets a religion rather than an individual - or an individual ideology within Islam. The problem is that the Media refuses to educate people in what the correct term is = "Radical Islamist" - and explain what this ideology entails - which is amazing when you think about it. We had people targeting Sikhs - cause they wear Turbans - after 911. Sikhs are not even Muslim - never mind being radical Islamist's. Not all Muslims are Islamist - so what is an "Islamist" ? An Islamist is someone who believes that Sharia should be the law of the land. This = they believe that religious belief should be forced on people through physical violence (Law) - and the more radical of this crowd through "Holy Jihad" if necessary - even the ones who are not participating in "Holy Jihad" tend to support the Jihadists and things like Fatwa's - and order to kill someone on the basis that they have done something offensive to Islam. Bottom line -people that hold this ideology "Hate" secularism - separation of Church and State. They Hate individual liberty - the principle on which this nation was founded. So what difference does this failure to educate make ? - other than people attacking Sikhs ? We now have a Muslim Congress woman from Somalia - a place that is full of Islamist's and very few non Islamist's Ilhan Omar. For the life of me I can not find one reporter that asked Omar whether or not she believed in Sharia. When people on her twitter feed asked and she avoided the question. We see what these haters of individual liberty are doing in Europe - attacking and persecuting women who happen to wander into an Islamist neighborhood - for wearing clothing that they deem inappropriate. There has been a huge increase in rape and sexual assault in these nations. Establishments that serve alcohol have also been targeted. So what about the US - as far as I know - no attempt by immigration has been made to determine whether or not someone holds Islamist ideology. Some claim "that would be a religious test". I say it is not a religious test - it is an ideological test. I don't care what religion one professes to be - If someone hates the founding principles = hates individual liberty and secularism - why on earth would we let such a person into this nation ? So why is it that the media will not educate people in these things ? This goes to a deeper problem in our society. 12 years of school and we fail to educate kids on the founding principles - in general - 1) individual liberty is "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't 2) that authority comes from "we the people" as opposed to "divine right"/God as was the case in past. I will not get into what the above means for brevity but, in general - the Establishment hates the founding principles - on both sides of the fence - and that is what I think the reason for this lack of education exists. Republicans have no clue what the principle so Republicanism are - never mind follow them. Liberals have no clue what the principles of classical Liberalism are - never mind follow them.
Did I say something about banning any guns? I must have been sleep typing. I said make people purchase liability insurance for their guns. Teens pay more for car insurance, they are rewarded for behavior that indicates a more responsible driver like good grades. Post teens see their premiums drop simply because they are a better risk. Bad drivers with accidents or a fist full of moving violations see their premiums go up. Buy a car with 200MPH on the speedometer and up go your premiums. DUI's are real expensive. Good risk behavior lower premiums. High risk behavior pays for it. The same could easily hold true for guns, the insurance company rewards responsible behavior and penalizes risky behavior. You still get to have your guns until you become un-insurable because of repeated risky or even negligent behavior and the government isn't doing it. And just like the insurance company encourages safer cars they'll push innovation in safer guns. Non-lethal or inoperable except by the registered owner. Besides, the insurance industry will need a new revenue source to replace health insurance.
It's all types of people with all kinds of backgrounds. With human nature being universal that's to be expected. imo it is an extension of "I want it my way and I want it now." Or somebody is going to have to pay. Which is sick.
It’s skewed to those who have actually been charged with one. There are 140 where people won’t talk or give description. I’m willing to make guesses as to who those perps were, but they wouldn’t be facts, it would be speculation.
Right https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/sell-massacre-nra-playbook-revealed-190325111828105.html I recommend watching the embedded videos
Nope. You can’t say there are more than one a day then pull out a graph saying there isn’t one a day. Whatever you do though, STOP TRYING TO REMOVE THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF FOREIGNERS IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.
Trump caused the El Paso shooting just like Bernie Sanders caused the June 14, 2017, shooting at the Republican practice for the Congressional Baseball Game for Charity in Alexandria, Va.
Hmmm...in line with with demographics of the US, or are the Democrats most devoted voting block over-represented here as well?
So according to your chart, there are 62 mass shootings by white in 37 years. Less than 2 per year. So where does the over 200 mass shooting in 2019 go?
You seem to be having problems following the discussion. Here, let me help you: Here in the US, we already have mandatory Background Checks when a firearm is purchased. However, the Background check is only required (Federally) on retail sales. One of the most popular "gun control" legislation that the Left is proposing is to stop the loophole of person-to-person sales. Person-to-Person sales are "private sales". (i.e. a friend selling a gun to another friend, a person sells the gun on the internet, family members passing on their gun to another family member, etc). Basically, any sale not involving a licensed gun dealer. None of the recent mass shooters obtained their gun from a person-to-person sale. In fact, I can't think of any of the shooters that obtained a gun in this fashion. Ergo, the propose legislation will not have any impact on "mass shooters" if they are not obtaining guns from person-to-person sales. Ergo #2, the shooters obtained the guns legally through a retail sale and submitted to a background check. Fatback is talking about person-to-person sales. He is not talking about retail sales....which is how the weapons were obtained. Neither the El Paso shooter nor the Dayton shooter obtained their weapon through person-to-person sales.
I don't have slaves, Im not democrat. OP's data guts your distracted claims. My advice is to take some emu's and kangaroos to the sydney opera house. Roit?
Lol, THAT definition seems more reasonable. When you think mass shooting you think Las Vegas, Comumbine, El Paso, Sandy Hook. You don't think some sh*thole street in the middle of a gang turf war. If you can't see how those events are distinct then you should not be posting here,
Mostly angry White Men.....With EASY access to weapons of War on the list.....These Terrorists would make ISIS proud