nobody ever talks about enron anymore. The CEO only got like 5 years for that. Nobody talks about nortel anymore, the CEO got no time for that, and a shit ton of money, all the employees had no pension.
Etc, etc, etc…
The guy didn’t say or post much directly about it. Sometimes people do crazy shit for very little reason. You couple that with the ability to get guns easily, mass quantities of ammo, and bump stocks, you have yourself a bloody stew.
People love patterns, but sometimes there just isn’t one. There is no single profile for a mass shooter. The closest you get is male and either 15-24 or 35-44.
Most people shoot others for grievances and having a shitty life. Sometimes not though. Many shooters don’t even take their own life. Plenty of them are still on the run.
The easiest answer is that the vast majority of how our society runs is through the fear or threat of death. The moment someone starts wanting it, they’re capable of nearly anything.
Most people see the greener pasture of nothingness between the loop of a noose at home. Some decide to kill and maim before they go out.
Unfortunately because of the 2nd amendment, it lets people rampage easily with high body counts before dying
Most people see the green pasture or love of nothingness between the noose in their own home.
Unexpectedly poetic
Yeah I edited it a bit after since it was kinda worded odd. Joys of mobile.
The old image of a 4chan post or something of a hanging noose and through it was a green idyllic field has always stuck with me.
Well, I’m convinced.
Because there’s another mass shooting every couple days. It’s hard to care about why one dude did something crazy 7 years ago while bullets are still flying. People are much more focused on trying to stop the next one.
I agree with all of that, except for the part about people being focused on trying to stop the next one.
If anyone was actually serious about that, we wouldn’t average more than one per day across the U.S.
Focused on trying to stop the next one in every way except restricting guns, or funding mental health care, or reducing hate, or… Well anything that takes more than thoughts and prayers.
What a country.
The mental health care thing is so frustrating.
Let’s enact some gun control laws because most guns used in mass shootings are bought legally.
“No, it’s a mental health issue!”
Well, then let’s fund mental health services and increase access to them.
“No, that’s not my problem.”
Played out again and again. I mean I know it’s all just deflection, but dammit at least try to have a consistent position.
We have tried nothing and we are all out of options.
Ah c’mon, give them credit where it’s due. They didn’t try nothing - thoughts and prayers were tried in abundance.
Hot take: “thoughts and prayers” and “doing nothing” are the exact same thing
I didn’t think I needed the /s, but here goes:
/s
I was kind of adding on top of it. Didn’t think I needed to say it either, but here we are lol.
Are they even doing that tho? Like they talk about it a lot, but because these are children we send to slaughter and watch their teachers bleed out while terrified, I demand to see these thoughts and prayers as long as they are preferred in a way that implies moral support. Appalling.
Gotta appreciate how I Googled that phrase, clicked on the first YouTube link, and the very first comment was along the lines of “US conservatives reacting to mass shootings”
At some point, a long time ago, we collectively transitioned from viewing mass shootings as an alarming epidemic, to something culturally endemic to our way of life. It’s an effortless rationalization made possible by for-profit news and for-profit politics.
People are much more focused on trying to stop the next one.
Are they really? What is really being done?
A lotta hope. My 3 minutes are penciled in tomorrow at 2pm. Same 3 minutes my legislators spend on it. Gotta have hope!¹
- “Gotta have hope!” is a thing you hear in cancer wards and places where people know in their souls that there is no hope.
Except they’re not. They’re focused on blaiming everyone around them while not looking for actual causes. The CDC is banned BY LAW from researching the actual causes, because the NRA knows the answer is going to be mass gun ownership and them instilling a very toxic version of gun culture in this country.
No one is doing anything substantial to stop the next one.
Disagreed. No one gives a shit about stopping the next one. We’d actually have stricter gun laws if that were true.
*nobody in government.
No, there are not mass shooting every couple of days.
When we hear “mass shooting”, we’re all thinking about the Mother Jones and Violence Project numbers shown (hardly conservative sources). 6 for 2021. (And crime is way down since then.)
And if we go with the worst numbers on there, ~4,000, that’s about a month worth of vehicular fatalities, not dead plus injured.
Everyone on here bitches about capitalism and how billionaires control our lives. Everyone is keenly aware that most media outlets have been combined into Sinclair and a few other owners. But when the media presents a steady drumbeat of death and destruction, no one seems to be able to put 2 and 2 together. They want the commoners disarmed.
I don’t have answers, but all I know is that we had plenty of guns around when I was a kid, and yes, AR-15s as well, and this shit wasn’t anything like today.
Awesome point, yea, the “commoners” need to be disarmed.
So you were around plenty of guns in your childhood? As a child, you knew what an AR-15 was?
Hmmm. It’s almost like children growing up around guns, especially those exposed to rifles as you mentioned, became comfortable and used to them, know how to use them, and where to get them.
Cool graphic you shared in an attempt to justify gun violence. Ml
Switzerland
In 2024 there have been more “mass shooting events” in the US than there have been days in 2024.
One that happened 7 years ago isn’t top of mind for most people.
It’s part of Vegas’ branding strategy.
What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.
If only they hadn’t made that legally binding.
This, like any event, comes down to what the family does to keep a case going. There’s many cold cases that are now getting solved by family members rather than police.
There is no agency out there that will keep interest in an issue.
once the media is done with it(they have a super short attention span) and the police will spend all of a few weeks on most things it is the family that keep the interest going. They will pay out of pocket to get attention for it.
There’s even cases where family members that have investigated into commercial air craft incidents because they lost loved ones and helped solve cases on that.
Believe it or not there are people calling the police every day just to keep their attention on a missing person or murder, asking for new leads. These are family members.
Police will not do this on their own.
Worse: the police DO NOT SOLVE CRIME. Think of all the hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits. Think of all the stories about someone being murdered because the police decided that it was a “civil” matter.
If Americans can be numb to mass killings of elementary school children, Vegas never stood a chance of remaining in the public discourse.
deleted by creator
It hurts to read but. It’s the answer for sure.
It’s because of what you said: no motive. Crime like this is only sensational when the motive can be applied to some fictional stereotype of villain that could be stopped by new legislation or a war or whatever.
Also I think a big reason we don’t discuss this specific event is the caliber of rifle used. Contrary to popular belief, non “assault” weapons can do a shocking amount of damage in an environment where the targets can’t retaliate. See the Virginia Tech shooting.
Long story short: if it ain’t political and can’t be made political, people in the US won’t care for long.
There was seemingly no political motive so there’s no real reason to report on it anymore
I searched it a week ago to check how many people israel killed during their flour massacare. Because both involved shooting bullets into dense crowds.
The hotel massacare killed 60 people
Israel’s flour massacare killed 120 people.
So that basically sums up. The hotel massacare wasn’t “that big of a deal”.
Kinda like the superb owl parade or Thanksgiving parade (last year or two?) shootings. No political use, no story to report.
There was a shooting at the superb owl parade?? I don’t even remember hearing about it.
Kansas City had a shooting at their victory parade.
So fun fact
The reason why it was the deadliest shooting is because the shitstain was using a bump stock, which makes semiautomatics into pseudo-automatics, so he just mag dumped into a crowd
After it happened, the Trump admin of all fucking people banned bump stocks. Broken clock or something.
Now SCOTUS is about to hear a court case to repeal the ban, and they look poised to legalize bump stocks again under the BS reason that “they’re not technically automatic weapons”
With the added bonus that now everyone knows about them
No hardware required, also not some new technique suddenly discovered:
How to Bump Fire an AR-15/M4
AK47 bump fireNot trying to minimize the bump stock thing but I would wager that having 23 different guns and hundreds of rounds of ammo is why so many people got shot that night. This guy had it all planned out including bipods, red dots, cameras etc. this guy even went as far as to nailing his door shut so in any case someone got to his hotel before he was done, he would have extra time.
Yeah the bump stocks made a difference but I don’t think it was by that much.
For those of us who don’t wank ourselves to sleep every night to pictures of guns and have no idea what the fuck a bump stock is -
Essentially, bump stocks assist rapid fire by “bumping” the trigger against one’s finger (as opposed to one’s finger pulling on the trigger), thus allowing the firearm’s recoil, plus constant forward pressure by the non-shooting arm, to actuate the trigger
For those of us who don’t wank ourselves to sleep every night to pictures of guns and have no idea what the fuck a bump stock is
Interesting observation, I’d have thought anyone old enough at the time to follow news of the deadliest mass shooting in history would have known, especially since bump stocks became the largest discussion point of gun violence debate at the time, before Glock switches.
Since you don’t
watch news about gun violencewank yourself to sleep watching gun videos every night, here’s what that is:A Glock switch or Glock auto-sear (sometimes called a button or a giggle switch) is a small device that can be attached to the rear of the slide of a Glock handgun, converting the semi-automatic pistol into a machine pistol capable of fully automatic fire.
largest discussion point
Ha ha you seem to misunderstand that most other countrys’ entire discussion of the matter was “Fucksake the backwards yanks are at it again, must be a day with a ‘Y’ in it” 🙄
Have you tried…not shooting people?
If two people get shot in London or Paris, it’s massive news, and laws get changed.
If ten people get shot in the US, we kinda just shake our heads, and yous do fuck all
No argument on that point, we’re pretty docile through years of bread and circus, and complacency conditioning propaganda¹. George Floyd protests could have been the outrage and protesting in Paris over a cheese manufactured getting wrongly fined by the government, but here it took mandatory lockdowns with everyone out of work and ruin-of-civilization pandemic fears.
I get it. Wish I could personally change it, but the most I can do is vote, and call and email my representatives. If everyone did that every issue, we’d have a different country. Unfortunately see point ¹
I own a gun, a revolver, it was my uncle’s service weapon. I’ve taken it to the range a few times but besides that it sits locked in the safe unloaded and safety on, and I don’t carry it around. I can’t see myself ever needing to actually use it, but it’s nice to know it’s there in case there were ever truly a threat to my family. In places like the UK, I assume people have home defense weapons in the form of knives, billy clubs, pepper spray, etc. I’ve seen the damage it can do at the range, and it’s scary. I’m scared of it. I don’t ever want to become not scared of it.
Can someone who’s more into gun stuff tell me why people are always talking about the number of guns someone has?
What makes 23 different guns better than one good one? I can see the point of having like two, in case the first jams, but based on my (limited) experience I would much rather have a single HK416 than a dozen of anything else.
Also with fewer guns you need fewer ammo types (unless you for some reason have 23 guns with the same ammo, which to me makes even less sense).
Because it grabs attention and sounds scary, which really what media outlets care about. My other favorite is when they talk about someone having being caught with “hundreds of rounds of ammunition”, which clearly indicates that’s how many people they were planning on murdering, and isn’t just a pretty typical range day, or in the case of reallly common stuff like 9mm, 22LR, or even 223, can literally be a single box of ammo.
Can someone who’s more into gun stuff tell me why people are always talking about the number of guns someone has?
Can be one of several things, or usually a combination:
- to show how prepared they were
- to imply the person was crazy because they had that many guns
- to imply people having that many guns somehow itself makes them more dangerous
A lot of it is just rhetoric
But it also does raise the question: why did the shooter think he needed a lot of guns?
That is true, maybe he thought he was going to have a multiday standoff, but I don’t know why he’d need so many guns for that.
The guy just had a lot of guns. He had 23 with him and he had like another 20 at home.
But I would also imagine that him having them all loaded put into a row each mounted on its own bipod in his suite is faster than reloading.
A lot of people this thing about reloading, but honestly, my reload time after a couple weeks of basic training was under the five seconds you need to pass, and after a couple months of service plenty of people were closer to three seconds. I have a hard time imagining that swapping weapons is quicker. I guess the reloading thing might be the reason to have many guns, but it strikes me as a strange one.
And really, I’m not only talking about this specific case, I get the feeling that people that are into guns will often focus on the number of guns someone has, also outside this case, which seems a bit of a strange metric to be talking about in general.
He brought all those guns to the hotel room he shot from. I imagine it was so he could shoot as many rounds as possible at the crowd with out the need to reload.
But that really makes no sense. Unless you have them all set up in a row pointed exactly where you want, you’re probably not even saving half a second vs reloading. The old “switching is faster than reloading” thing doesn’t apply nearly as much when you’re at a static position and can have all your mags out in the open at arm’s reach.
He was operating a significant number of his weapons on bump stocks. Bump stocks allow firing at a much higher rate than the weapons were designed for. Operating at a higher rate causes the weapons to overheat. Overheating causes misfires and jams (and inaccuracy and can permanently damage weapons, but I doubt he was particularly concerned about those things). He did have them all set up in a row and many on mounts. He broke out the overlooking windows of his hotel room before he started shooting. It seems he was shooting with one until it jammed and then moving on to the next rather than trying to clear misfires.
If that is the case, that he was using a gun until it jammed, it makes more sense to me. At the same time, how often does an ordinary gun jam? I’ve used an HK416 and an MG3 during a year of army service (conscription training) and to my memory you could fire many hundred rounds (thousands in the case of the MG3) without a single jam, and a misfire takes about a second (max) to clear.
Also, I’ve seen people talking about the number of guns someone has also in other settings, as a kind of metric that people who are into guns seem to care about, I guess I’m more wondering about the phenomenon in general than just this specific case.
I have no idea on a metric of how frequently an “ordinary” gun jams, much less these modified ones, but I can apply some logic from my knowledge/experiences. The weapons you mention having experience with are designed with appropriate tolerances to not bind up under heavy use, so are a bit different from the ‘consumer-grade’ type we’re talking about in this specific event.
The type of semiautomatic rifles we’re talking about here use recoil to cycle the action. A bump stock allows the whole weapon to oscillate - and can have an effect similar to not securely shouldering the weapon. This prevents the needed energy from being transferred into the action for complete cycling, and that would make the weapon prone to jamming.
I don’t know if I have much of value to add to or reply to your second paragraph, but yeah that fixation is weird.
A SCOTUS that Trump installed.
The reason why it was the deadliest shooting is because the shitstain was using a bump stock
No, he was looking over a massive crowd of people with a rifle. He may have killed more people without a bump stock, given the difficulty it causes for accuracy. Saying it is a settled fact that it led to the deaths is just not true.
I mean, he didn’t really have much of a problem with accuracy - he fired a total of 1058 rounds, and those rounds or shrapnel from them injured 413 different people. Of course, many people received more than a single gunshot wound. He killed 58 (later 60) in ten minutes of shooting – effectively one person every 10 seconds. I think it would be difficult for a single person to injure or kill more from where he was standing with any weapon short of an RPG.
kill more from where he was standing with any weapon short of an RPG.
I think short of somehow knocking down a build that would make it more difficult because of the very slow reload speed.
kill more from where he was standing with any weapon short of an RPG.
And a semi-auto rifle can fire much faster than that without a bumpstock
He didn’t exactly need accuracy when there was a sea of targets in front of him, especially if his objective was to hit as many of them as possible before they could disperse.
But he continued to hit people while they were dispersing
I was just thinking about it.
I think the motive was the guy was angry at the world and wanted to kill as many people as possible before killing himself.
A man that feels he has nothing to lose is a dangerous thing.
A man that feels he has nothing to lose is a dangerous thing.
There is no defense against the berserker.
– Sir Terry Pratchett
Anyone with no regard for their own safety and a will to harm others is always dangerous
There is a defense… Just make sure he can’t get his hands on guns easily.
A man that feels he has nothing to lose is a dangerous thing.
Billionaires with nothing to gain but money for moneys sake are far more dangerous, it’s just they are going to kill your loves ones with crushing debt or an opioid prescription not a bullet.
Between 1999 and 2015, around 350,000 people died from opioid addiction related deaths in the US.
350,000
Guess whether any of the Sacklers went to jail who knowingly pushed opioid prescriptions in situations where it was dangerous or unnecessary based rational from studies conducted to purposefully sell more opioids?
This is why we can kill 2 birds with one stone via smart ubi
I mean as long as UBI isn’t spearheaded by a bunch of libertarians who think they are bravely forging an unprecedented path forward towards creating a social safety net while ignoring the long history of social safety nets in different societies, and the entire left movement in the US that fought successfully for things like the 8 hour work day.
I think UBI can be great, but there are wayyyy too many libertarians into UBI to the point that the ruling class has a super clear route to catastrophically cutting social welfare programs across the board while saying “we don’t need these if we have UBI!”, making UBI completely insufficient, and fooling libertarians into taking the bait hook line and sinker because they don’t have political or historical knowledge about how social welfare in societies is actually achieved through organization of worker power to leverage against a hostile ruling class.
smart uzi
FTFW
😉
A man that feels he has nothing to lose is a dangerous thing.
Especially if he has easy access to large quantities of weapons and ammunition.
Turns out the dude was likely involved with CSAM, as his brother was arrested for it almost immediately after the shooting.
From what I’ve seen, his brother was one of the only people still in touch with him during his last days.
A man that feels he has nothing to lose is a dangerous thing
Especially when they’re a former “responsible gun owner”.
Ever been to the Bunkerville/Mesquite, Nevada, area? The Vegas shooter was probably acquainted with the Bundys, of “federal building” and “FBI shoot out” fame. I’ve a suspicion the government would prefer people didn’t know he was probably a right wing terrorist.
You don’t get a collection of guns like that without being right wing. Doesn’t matter who you’re acquainted with. He also had a pretty big victim complex when it came to his all-consuming gambling addiction and was pissed about not being comped with all the perks he thought he deserved for the about of money he spent.
From what I understand, he had also recently taken a serious nosedive in the finance department, and while he was still a high roller, he was not the HIGH ROLLER he had been in years before, and he seemed to regard that as an injury to his pride.
Gun ownership isn’t a right wing exclusive trait, unless you’re one of those people who just move anything they don’t like over the “right”…Do you not know who the Bundys are?
I know who the Bundy’s are. Freeloading terrorists who should be in prison.
Yeah, I absolutely did pigeonhole the shooter as a right winger because that’s who is most likely to own the guns he did and fetishize them to the point he needed bump stocks for lols. Just stating that lefties own guns doesn’t offer anything to the conversation.
One article suggests:
Paddock appeared fixated on three pillars of right-wing extremism: anti-government conspiracy theories, threats to Second Amendment rights, and overly burdensome taxes.
…
a man who loathed restrictions on gun ownership and believed that the Second Amendment was under siege,
So despite law enforcement going way out of its way to avoid mention of paddock’s leanings, it is highly likely he was a regular right wing/libertarian nutter.
Another site with more info with his right wing and fringe leanings.
Edit: and for the record, I enjoy the shooting sports, but I have no time for the morons tying guns to their personal identities and using 2A to avoid sanity and reason when it comes to gun control. Fuck the people that make the rest of society pay for their unfettered access to guns. So no, I didn’t “move something I disliked” unless you count right wing nuts who kill and injure hundreds as a dislike.
If you actually believe the bump stock story, I can’t be bothered continuing this.
I live there. I don’t know if the shooter knew about the Bundy’s story but it’s very unlikely that they ever met. The shooter lived north of the interstate, in one of those fancy estates. I happen to know one of his neighbors. The Bundys lived on the other side of Bunkerville.
For the most part Americans are so desensitized to the gain Violence that it’s not something most of us think about much.
I’ve grown up in a post Columbine world, and mass shootings have been a part of my life since it started. They’re just a really unfortunate part of life here that won’t change unless there’s a massive culture shift.
I like target shooting and clay pigeon shooting. I am also pro-guns because I think progressives should learn and know how to defend themselves. I don’t like or agree with animal/fox hunting as that’s just barbaric. I also don’t think people should get unrestricted access to certain types of weapons.
So I agree with the cultural shift idea, but I don’t want access to guns to go away. But I guess my problem is that I don’t see enough people with this type of measured take. If I am wrong about something, I am open to knowing a different take.
I’m not against gun ownership. I’m against zero gun ownership regulation. Requiring background checks seems like a no brainer but we cannot even get to that part. The next I would suggest is a weekend long course on the proper use, safety, cleaning, and storage of your weapon before you are allowed to buy one. Finally, I think we should have that class reupped every 2 years to keep your license to own the firearm. It’s a dangerous thing to have around and most good gun owners would support some of this, even if it is a hassle. It could be made fun too though. Free ammo for some range practice or something. Maybe a few for the class covers that, I don’t know. Consider it a meetup with other people with similar interests.
Agree, gun ownership should come with discipline and accountability
I am pro gun, I believe that most incidents seem to come from either mishandling or improper/insecure storage.
People need to prioritize safety/security above all with firearms.
… They don’t.
Back in the day it was called “going postal” because of the number of mail workers that used to do it. It’s not that new, sadly. Columbine just seemed to popularity it in schools. Yet another example of women inventing something and men taking the credit.
Never found a motive? Are you joking? We’ve got tons of info on the psycho who did it. He was a distraught aging white male with a history of depression, gambling, and firearms who wanted to hurt the world and kill himself.
Sad losers are a dime a dozen but at least most of them aren’t as stupid as that guy. There is no reason to discuss this outside of proposed changes to our society as a whole to better prevent these stains on history.
But but but why did he spray bullets at a crowd with intent to murder hundreds? Why, man, why? We need his manifesto, his tax records, the political affiliations of his associates and family! How else am I supposed to fit him into my narrative if I can’t prove why he thought to do the unthinkable?
/s
Racist.
Explain how.
There’s no need to mention their race right? Unless it was a racially motivated attack, which I don’t remember coming up.
In an alternate universe…
He was a distraught aging black male with a history of depression, gambling, and firearms who wanted to hurt the world and kill himself.
It’s the inclusion of ‘aging white male’ listed with the other negatives, so it could be viewed as ageist, sexist, and racist.
Yes, yes, let your feelings guide the mouse to the downvote button
White men are the most dangerous segment of the population, which is clearly shown by violent crime statistics. There is a reason that rural census tracts (which are overwhelmingly white) are the most dangerous places to live.
? The fuck? The statistics don’t show anything like that and it’s not polite to discuss what they really show.
That is not what I said, nor is it true. While males are 97.7% of the NIJ’s Index of Mass Shooters, only about 50% were white which is lower than their proportion of the total population. However, depression amongst that demographic is higher and growing, and mental illnesses correlate highly with those who harm others and themselves, so I’m just saying the Vegas Shooter ticked every box on the proverbial check list.
~30% of the US population are white men but according to that link 52% of mass shootings are perpetrated by white men. That is a ~22% increase over what you would expect if the US didn’t raise its white conservative men to be violent and hateful and specifically teach them they are the only types of people who are allowed to be violent or threaten the possibility of violence in public spaces.
How is this not evidence that white men are the most dangerous people in the US? Not in terms of being likely to commit a crime of desperation but rather to be an utter loser and decide to shoot a bunch of random people out of pure hate? White men might not be the most likely to hurt you in the US, but they are BY FAR the most likely to hurt you for no reason other than you who happen to be and what you happen to represent to them.
71% of the USA is white. You’re just being a disingenuous piece of shit, fuck off mate.
Statistics are hard to understand huh?
I believe you may be misinformed. Surely not blatantly making things up to fit your narrative?
Based on data compiled by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, it found that while Black people make up 13% of the U.S. population, they were 33% of persons arrested for non-fatal violent crime (NVC), which includes rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and other assaults. Black people were 36% of those arrested for serious non-fatal violent crimes (SNVC), including rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
Similarly, Hispanics make up 18% of the US population and were 21% of those arrested for serious non-fatal violent crimes. Whites, who are 60% of the population, were 46% of persons arrested for non-fatal violent crimes, and 39% of those arrested for serious non-fatal violent crimes.
The designation “Black” and “white” often did not include those who are Hispanic. In 9% of single-offender incidents and 12% of multiple-offender incidents, the victim was unable to tell whether the offender was Hispanic.
…
In 2021, crime victimization rates were higher in urban than rural areas. In urban settings, 24.5 out of 1,000 people aged 12 or older reported being the victims of violent crimes, and 157.5 reported being the victims of property crimes. In rural settings, those figures were 11.1 and 57.7, respectively. How many people report being victims of crime?
In 2021, more than 4.5 million violent incidents involving victims ages 12 and older were self-reported in the US in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). In the same year, 11.7 million property victimizations were also reported, according to the Criminal Victimization report from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Despite this, US crime victimization rates have been on an overall downward trend since 1995. The DOJ tracks crime victimization data by location, which shows how trends vary for urban, suburban, and rural areas. One common narrative is that urban crime victimization rates exceed those in rural areas — and this is true, based on the data.
Arrests and convictions are not a valid proxy for violent acts or crimes committed. If you knew absolutely anything about this area of study you’d be aware of that. Have fun with your willful ignorance.
So the victims say the perpetrator is a white man; police arrest black male. I’ll wait for you to link to the 4 times that’s happened as if it’s a checkmate.
I’m sure you have the added statistics for convictions and they fully support what you’re saying. Pray tell, because your urban vs. rural assumptions on violence is clearly not supported by the evidence.
Convictions show the same? Curious about your reasoning for that, that doesn’t sound wildly racist.
If we’re not going off of facts (statics of arrests and convictions) then what are we going off of? Feelings? I’m more than willing to have my mind changed if you can provide an argument that rural white men are the most dangerous group, as long as it’s based on more than feelings and hearsay. A black man in urban attire walking into a sunset town of 100 people has the same result as a white man in a suit walking down a dangerous inner-city street. Same cause of effect: human nature.
At the risk of sounding racist, I think it’s quite obvious that when you buy a foreign people from their homeland as a commodity (sold largely in part by warlords and warring tribes of the same race, by the way), treat them as chattle (literally) and forbid any written or oral history of their culture or familial past, while raping the women and killing the babies or selling them off, creating extreme intergenerational trauma, hatred, and injustice, and then continue treating them like shit even after the law says you can no longer treat them as less than human…
You may have a societal problem on your hands that doesn’t resolve itself in a measly few generations. A societal problem that results in higher rates of violence.
We need better support in this country in so many aspects. For women and men of all races and creeds. But until we break away from being an overly materialistic consumerist society, that won’t change. What we don’t need is a distortion of reality to fit a false narrative.
Crime victimization survey is, and can be used in conjunction with crime justice system statistics.
It is unfortunately relevant information on the topic of demographic shifts and marginalized groups. What the shooter did was not typical by any means, but who he was is extremely typical for what he did, sadly.
Whenever I see posts like this, I wonder about the benchmark being set.
I don’t know what OP wants… a weekly news story: “VEGAS SHOOTING STILL NOT SOLVED, NEWSPAPER EDITORS SEEK ALTERNATE HEADLINES”
DB Cooper was one of the most mysterious hijackers of all time. Still no motive, why don’t we hear about it more often?
Zodiac killer, active for years on the West Coast. No known motive… why don’t we hear about it? Why does no one mention it?
Jack the Ripper, killed women brutally, unsolved, no known motive. Why isn’t he mentioned more often?
This line of thinking drives me crazy. Our current news ecosystem thrives off cheap clickbait and manufactured outrage. Barring some radical new information, they won’t get that out of the Vegas shooting, hence it doesn’t make headlines routinely.
So you are saying that the answer is a serious lack of proper investigative journalism.
Clickbait is easy, investigative journalism takes brains, effort and integrity, all of which are lacking in today’s media organizations.
2017
