The Guns thread

[Lighthouse]

Of the 12 "mass shootings" in the USA this year...

6 by whites
4 by blacks
1 by an Asian
1 by an Hispanic

that's 50% by white men

white men are far more than 50% of men in this country.

so that's less than their actual percent of the population.

But let's get back to stereotypes.

WHITE MEN HAVE COMMITTED MORE MASS SHOOTINGS THAN ANY OTHER GROUP

The deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history was shocking in its scale — but it wasn't a surprise that it was committed by a white male.

Statistics show that since 1982, the majority of mass shootings — 54 percent — were committed by white men, according to data from Mother Jones. Black people were the second largest perpetrators of mass shootings based on ethnic background, but only accounted for roughly 16 percent of the total incidents during the same time period.

 

[Krystal]

I'm confused about something earlier....

When women are angry they withhold their "V" -- ?

Who the hell has sex while they are angry with somebody? You expect to be in a fight with your wife and have sex before you resolve the argument?

I would expect that people would make love at a point in time when are friendly toward each other. Guess I'm old fashioned.

 

[Krystal]

WHITE MEN HAVE COMMITTED MORE MASS SHOOTINGS THAN ANY OTHER GROUP

LOL. Are you mathematically challenged? 54% quoted by the article is BELOW the white population!

I think non-Hispanic whites are now 67% of the population (they were even higher in previous years) -- that means statistically speaking they are under-represented in those statistics!

If there were a population of 99 "green" people and 1 "purple" person and 2 green people committed a murder and the 1 purple person committed a murder would it make sense to say most murderers are green?

No, greens who make up 99% of that group only committed 67% of the murders and purples who make up 1% committed 33% of the murders.

If all you can gleam from that statistic is "more murders are committed by greens" -- you are sorely lacking in the workings of logic.

Mass murder is not a white thing. It's a human thing unfortunately. Humans are a mess. Look at the world. All humans are a mess. Too bad we can't all treat each other the way we treat other during these situations. One piece of ***** and hundreds of people reacted decently.

 

[Motown Marvel]

LOL. Are you mathematically challenged? 54% quoted by the article is BELOW the white population!

I think non-Hispanic whites are now 67% of the population (they were even higher in previous years) -- that means statistically speaking they are under-represented in those statistics!

If there were a population of 99 "green" people and 1 "purple" person and 2 green people committed a murder and the 1 purple person committed a murder would it make sense to say most murderers are green?

No, greens who make up 99% of that group only committed 67% of the murders and purples who make up 1% committed 33% of the murders.

If all you can gleam from that statistic is "more murders are committed by greens" -- you are sorely lacking in the workings of logic.

Mass murder is not a white thing. It's a human thing unfortunately. Humans are a mess. Look at the world. All humans are a mess. Too bad we can't all treat each other the way we treat other during these situations. One piece of ***** and hundreds of people reacted decently.

I get what you are trying to say, but 54% of white men commit mass shootings. When the next closest group by race is only 16%, that kinda makes it a white thing.

 

[Lighthouse]

LOL. Are you mathematically challenged? 54% quoted by the article is BELOW the white population!

I think non-Hispanic whites are now 67% of the population (they were even higher in previous years) -- that means statistically speaking they are under-represented in those statistics!

If there were a population of 99 "green" people and 1 "purple" person and 2 green people committed a murder and the 1 purple person committed a murder would it make sense to say most murderers are green?

No, greens who make up 99% of that group only committed 67% of the murders and purples who make up 1% committed 33% of the murders.

If all you can gleam from that statistic is "more murders are committed by greens" -- you are sorely lacking in the workings of logic.

Mass murder is not a white thing. It's a human thing unfortunately. Humans are a mess. Look at the world. All humans are a mess. Too bad we can't all treat each other the way we treat other during these situations. One piece of ***** and hundreds of people reacted decently.

If you can't understand the difference between 54% and 16%, I don't think I'm the one who has a problem with logic. But go ahead and ignore the problem and keep your simplified view of "Everyone's bad!"

 

[SV Fan]

LOL. Are you mathematically challenged? 54% quoted by the article is BELOW the white population!

I think non-Hispanic whites are now 67% of the population (they were even higher in previous years) -- that means statistically speaking they are under-represented in those statistics!

If there were a population of 99 "green" people and 1 "purple" person and 2 green people committed a murder and the 1 purple person committed a murder would it make sense to say most murderers are green?

No, greens who make up 99% of that group only committed 67% of the murders and purples who make up 1% committed 33% of the murders.

If all you can gleam from that statistic is "more murders are committed by greens" -- you are sorely lacking in the workings of logic.

Mass murder is not a white thing. It's a human thing unfortunately. Humans are a mess. Look at the world. All humans are a mess. Too bad we can't all treat each other the way we treat other during these situations. One piece of ***** and hundreds of people reacted decently.

While you are correct on a per capita basis, 54% is still a pretty high number even if whites make up 2/3rds of the US population.

I wonder if you hold the same anger whenever you see Fox News or some other right wing source constantly bash Chicago for it's gun violence when if you look at Chicago from a per capita basis they generally not even worst 20

 

[regwec]

I don't want to be drawn into this silly argument, but Krystal is absolutely right here. Any analysis of the prevalence of a behaviour amongst a group is meaningless unless it measures the incidence per capita. Based on the statistics used by both Kystal and Lighthouse, a white male is statically less likely to commit a mass shooting than a male from a different ethnic group.

So, based on these statistics, to say that mass shootings are "a white thing" is a misunderstanding, if not a little bit of a lie. They are no more a "white thing" than wearing shoes in China is an "Asian thing".

On another note, I find it deeply depressing how any event or phenomenon that occurs in the USA now inevitably precipitates a childish and irrelevant argument about race, gender or sexuality. These are serious problems that are far harder to address honestly and possibly resolve if the underlying issues are constantly muddied with people's sociopolitical preconceptions and prejudices.

 

[squeekness]

I'm confused about something earlier....

When women are angry they withhold their "V" -- ?

Who the hell has sex while they are angry with somebody? You expect to be in a fight with your wife and have sex before you resolve the argument?

I would expect that people would make love at a point in time when are friendly toward each other. Guess I'm old fashioned.

That's not old fashioned, that's just common sense, lol.

 

[Motown Marvel]

I don't want to be drawn into this silly argument, but Krystal is absolutely right here. Any analysis of the prevalence of a behaviour amongst a group is meaningless unless it measures the incidence per capita. Based on the statistics used by both Kystal and Lighthouse, a white male is statically less likely to commit a mass shooting than a male from a different ethnic group.

But your assessment that a “White male is statically less likely to commit a mass shooting than a male from a different ethnic group.” is misleading. This is only true if you count “a different ethnic group” as all other ethnic groups combined into one. There is a 34% difference between white and the next closest race. That is pretty disproportionate.

 

[SV Fan]

But your assessment that a “White male is statically less likely to commit a mass shooting than a male from a different ethnic group.” is misleading. This is only true if you count “a different ethnic group” as all other ethnic groups combined into one. There is a 34% difference between white and the next closest race. That is pretty disproportionate.

He is referring to the individual person. In theory if Whites make up 67% of the country, then in a country where every group does something at the same rate they would commit 67% of the mass murders

 

[Motown Marvel]

He is referring to the individual person. In theory if Whites make up 67% of the country, then in a country where every group does something at the same rate they would commit 67% of the mass murders

But the statistic isn't about white people. It's about white males, who make up 31% of America, but are responsible for 54% of mass shootings. And even beyond that, the gap between the white male percentage of mass shooters and the next closest demographic by race, is pretty staggering.

 

[regwec]

Unless the 46% of mass shooting carried out by non-whites were carried out by a mixed distribution of men and women, then the only "staggering" statistics are that (1) men are overwhelmingly more likely to commit mass shooting than women, and (2) non-white males are more likely to commit mass shooting than white males. In fact, if we look at the statistics given in the table Lightouse linked to, we find that - of the vanishingly small number of mass shootings carried out my females - one was by a white woman, one by a "native" woman, and one by a male and a female labelled as "other". That's far too small a statistical sample for any conclusions to be drawn about the prevalence of mass shootings among women of different ethnic groups, but it does eliminate the supposition that mass shootings carried out by whites are, as compared with mass shootings generally, more likely to be carried out by white men than white women.

So, whatever gloss you want to put on the statistics, you cannot truthfully imply that they reveal mass shootings to be a "white thing" or even a "white male thing". What the statistics do show beyond much reasonable doubt is that mass shootings are a "male thing". That's an issue that could be usefully addressed, rather than clouding the lessons to be drawn by invoking the ever-popular white male bogeyman.

 

[SV Fan]

Unless the 46% of mass shooting carried out by non-whites were carried out by a mixed distribution of men and women, then the only "staggering" statistics are that (1) men are overwhelmingly more likely to commit mass shooting than women, and (2) non-white males are more likely to commit mass shooting than white males. In fact, if we look at the statistics given in the table Lightouse linked to, we find that - of the vanishingly small number of mass shootings carried out my females - one was by a white woman, one by a "native" woman, and one by a male and a female labelled as "other". That's far too small a statistical sample for any conclusions to be drawn about the prevalence of mass shootings among women of different ethnic groups, but it does eliminate the supposition that mass shootings carried out by whites are, as compared with mass shootings generally, more likely to be carried out by white men than white women.

So, whatever gloss you want to put on the statistics, you cannot truthfully imply that they reveal mass shootings to be a "white thing" or even a "white male thing". What the statistics do show beyond much reasonable doubt is that mass shootings are a "male thing". That's an issue that could be usefully addressed, rather than clouding the lessons to be drawn by invoking the ever-popular white male bogeyman.

I do believe the article originally quoted did said 98% of mass murders are committed by men

 

[Motown Marvel]

Unless the 46% of mass shooting carried out by non-whites were carried out by a mixed distribution of men and women, then the only "staggering" statistics are that (1) men are overwhelmingly more likely to commit mass shooting than women, and (2) non-white males are more likely to commit mass shooting than white males. In fact, if we look at the statistics given in the table Lightouse linked to, we find that - of the vanishingly small number of mass shootings carried out my females - one was by a white woman, one by a "native" woman, and one by a male and a female labelled as "other". That's far too small a statistical sample for any conclusions to be drawn about the prevalence of mass shootings among women of different ethnic groups, but it does eliminate the supposition that mass shootings carried out by whites are, as compared with mass shootings generally, more likely to be carried out by white men than white women.

So, whatever gloss you want to put on the statistics, you cannot truthfully imply that they reveal mass shootings to be a "white thing" or even a "white male thing". What the statistics do show beyond much reasonable doubt is that mass shootings are a "male thing". That's an issue that could be usefully addressed, rather than clouding the lessons to be drawn by invoking the ever-popular white male bogeyman.

Except race isn't divided between White and Non-White. There are dozens of racial identities. And white identities (particularly white male identities) are statistically far more likely to commit a mass shooting by a large margin when compared against any other racial identity. 54% of white men against 16% African American men. 54% white men against 7% Latino men. 54% of white men against 7% Asian men. 54% white men against 3% Native American men. And so on. You don't get to lump all of the other ethnicities into one mega category as a means to dilute the fact that white men are disproportionately responsible for mass shootings.

 

[DeadPresident]

A couple of you are really having a pathetic amount of difficulty with percentage of the population vs percentage of mass shootings and then cross referencing the two.

If white men are committing 50% of mass shootings but are 67% of the population they’re under represented by a 17% margin.

 

[Motown Marvel]

A couple of you are really having a pathetic amount of difficulty with percentage of the population vs percentage of mass shootings and then cross referencing the two.

If white men are committing 50% of mass shootings but are 67% of the population they’re under represented by a 17% margin.

White men are 31% of the population and committing 54% of mass shootings. This was mentioned above. So, keep up before you start referring to people as being pathetic.

 

[DeadPresident]

White men are 31% of the population and committing 54% of mass shootings.

-_- Right, my mistake - I didn’t adjust for the male/female split. That’s over representation then.

This was mentioned above. So, keep up before you start referring to people as being pathetic.

I guess I asked for that one.

 

[Schlosser85]

Imagine my disappointment when I clicked on the thread title hoping for the resurrection of the Hype Hunk O Rama

 

[Motown Marvel]

-_- Right, my mistake - I didn’t adjust for the male/female split. That’s over representation then.

I guess I asked for that one.

It happens, no worries. (insert high-five emoji).

 

[SV Fan]

-_- Right, my mistake - I didn’t adjust for the male/female split. That’s over representation then.

As I pointed out above MEN of all races have committed 98% of the mass murders so it's almost a moot point saying white men or black men since chances are an overwhelming majority of males from each race make up that statistic(ie I am guessing 6-6.5% of black males(roughly half the black population) make up the bulk of 16% of black mass murders)

 

[regwec]

Motown...you just don't seem to be able to relate the numbers. Or you have a particular reason to want to target white people by willfully inferring a correlation between their ethnicity and mass shootings. I don't think it can be put any more simply than DP has, but let me try:

1) As a preliminary assumption, to make this simpler, and because the data is de minimis, let's accept the statement that women don't as a rule commit mass shootings. We all (I think) accept that mass shootings are overwhelmingly likely to be committed by men.

2) If we want to try to look for correlations between ethnicity and predisposition to commit mass shootings, we are therefore talking about the ethnicity of potential male mass shooters.

3) Of the mass shootings committed by men, most are committed by white men. This is exactly what we would expect if we assumed that ethnicity has no bearing on the likelihood of a man committing a mass shooting, as there are many more white men in the USA than there are men of other races.

4) However, we find that the per-capita number of mass shootings committed by men who are white is fewer than the per capita number of men who are white.

5) This tells us that, on average for an American male, a white man is less likely to commit a mass shooting than a non-white male.

6) You are absolutely right to say that "non-white" is made up of all sorts of ethnicities (so too, in reality, is "white", but never mind). However, that has no bearing on the fact that white men are statistically less likely than non-white men when grouped together to go on a gun rampage.

7) Does this mean that being white in itself makes a man less likely to commit one of these atrocities? Probably not. It is quite likely that there are other ethnicities whose men are even less likely to do so. If this is so, however, it means that there will be other non-white ethnicities who are statistically far more likely to commit mass shootings.

8) We can probably work out which ethnic group or groups these are. But you know what? I'm not interested, because I am reasonably satisfied that the racial angle, though inevitably invoked, is a red herring. The far more compelling variable is gender.

 

[SV Fan]

8) We can probably work out which ethnic group or groups these are. But you know what? I'm not interested, because I am reasonably satisfied that the racial angle, though inevitably invoked, is a red herring. The far more compelling variable is gender.

To me I would like to see the stats for random(person randomly kills a group of people with no specific target) vs what I would refer to as targeted mass murders(basically person goes in full well with intent to kill specific people).

 

[Motown Marvel]

But you don't get to lump "non-white men" into one group. We are talking about the racial breakdown of mass shooters, which requires you to actually breakdown by race, not lump a bunch of races into a single generalized non-racial category.

 

[regwec]

Yes, but I don't want to do that because the result will inevitably be a bad tempered debate about why ethnic group x is more likely to commit mass shootings and, as I said, the whole racial angle seems to be an irrelevance. The latter is my over-arching point.

 

[SV Fan]

But you don't get to lump "non-white men" into one group. We are talking about the racial breakdown of mass shooters, which requires you to actually breakdown by race, not lump a bunch of races into a single generalized non-racial category.

I don't think people are lumping non white men into one category. The article in question only cites White and black males who together make up 80% of the country. Question is how does the other 30% divide up amongst the other 20% of the groups

Problem with the newsweek article is much like most articles on gun use from both sides it seemed to want to cherry pick statistics which would tell the story they want to tell

As an ardent defender of "Chicago" gun statistics and why Chicago is not as bad as Fox wants you to believe, I can't stand when statistics are manipulated