Why do people on here only care when the shooter is WHITE?

What an pathetically USELESS human being she is!

 

Are you trying to say that the New Jersey shooting wasn't a terrorist attack but the others were?

 

She spoke out before she knew the facts and revealed her bias. She is rather dumb. I agree.

 

Well yes. I have a feeling that some people may use the excuse that the New Jersey shooting wasn't a terrorist attack and therefore that's why it didn't get the same attention.

 

I agree that you’re entitled to your opinion. Did the post I quoted reflect it?

 

I believe it was. My understanding is they were motivated by hatred for Jews and Police. Seems to fit the bill as far as I can tell.

 

Did they bury the New Jersey shooting?

 

I would concede that race may be a component. Unsure if it is caused by motive or discomfort with the topic of black shooters in general.

 

I heard plenty about it on the radio, though I can’t say I followed the news closely. At the very least NPR and the BBC dedicated time to the story.

 

Not exactly burred. But the Headlines didn't' start with "White Shooter kills Jews. Trump responsible." There is very little commentary from the Left due to the races involved so it hasn't dominated the news cycle like it would have, had the races and or religions been reversed. I only imagine what it would be if a white man shot up a Mosque. Do the math.

 

i don't have time to look it up right now, but I believe the numbers you posted are wrong, waaay wrong.

Plus we need an explanation from someone why 4 of the most dangerous cities in the world are Detroit, Baltimore, St Louis and New Orleans. Those cities are dangerous largely because of the number of murders that occur there. Chicago didn't make the list, but when there are 20+ shootings on a weekend with 9 or 10 fatalities it doesn't make national news. The big news outlets might copy and paste a story about it onto the website (those clicks do generate income) but there are never any panel discussions about those murders on CNN or MSNBC. Can you think of why that might be?

 

This, of course, is completely false.

It crafts the narrative by dropping ALL mass shootings which happen every day on the streets of Chicago, Baltimore and other locations.

For the same reasons, of course.

 

If it was about the evil of murder, the media would write stories about the threat of gang culture instead of pontificating on the imaginary threat of "white supremacists".

 

...after posting data from a cherry-picked definition of "mass shooting" to include more white shootings and less by other races. The topic, btw, was "shootings," simple, not "mass shootings." One is a hard to fudge category and the other is very easy to fudge. Personally, I don't like all the "13/50" stuff that gets play today either, it doesn't factor out disproportionate "policing" of blacks across the country, the immense negative impact of the welfare state on blacks, and also doesn't usually include the necessary context that the vast majority of black people in the U.S. commit no crimes, violent or otherwise. But it must also be acknowledged that the "13/50" stuff is backlash to an unfair anti white narrative blared from near every chamber of the Complex hourly. Attack with race constantly and the eventual retort is going to be racial... and likely just as unfair and slanted as the attack.

 

First, this site is not mostly liberal.
There are more conservative posters and those posters “contribute” with much more frequency.

Second, white murders being discussed typically target schools, malls, public places with innocents — places where posters here, their children, spouse, friends, or family could potentially be. Black murders are typically confined to their neighborhoods or street crime and the vast majority of the time only target other blacks — very few posters see themselves as potential victims of these types of crime, so they don’t care.

 

So much unintentional honesty here that explains the leftist view quite handily.

 

Even if no rake is there, they will lay one out and then walk right into it oblivious.

 

Gone a couple of hours and we are in the middle of a debate about race...shame.

 

All you need to do is click on the link to read the source.

 

Two people are fighting over the same piece of land. It's just over this land, but let's say one person is black and another white. In a fit of rage of arguing over land, the black guy shots a white guy. National news picks up on this and frames it as an example of how violent black people are, adding to the discourse on how bad black people are. Was it about race? No. But it's going to be considered as part of the national discourse on race and how evil black people are.

Now let's get to your question. Why do people seemingly only care when the shooter is white? Because it helps break the connotation between violence and race. By having readily available counter examples, violence no longer gets framed as a race issue, and has to be reframed to better explain what is happening.

 

Racism is an attitude not ones cultural background or ethnicity.

 

Depending on how one defines "mass shooting," these statistics could be way, way off. it is not surprising that those with an agenda define "mass shooting" in a manner that suits their agenda.

 

And that's because the majority of people in the country are whites as well.

 

So, let's adjust those to percentages, and then look at it compared to the percentage of the population of that race.

Total mass shooters (per the above list) 115
Percentage:
White: 56.5
Black: 16.5
Latino: 8.7
Asian: 7
Native American: 2.6
Other: 4.4
Unknown: 4.4

Here is the percentage of population by race:
White: 73%
Black: 12.7%
Latino: 17.6
Asian: 5.4
Native American: 0.8
Other: 4.8

So, whites are under-represented in mass shooters. Blacks slighly over. Hispanics way under-represented, Asians slightly over, and unknown about the same. (numbers don't match up, because Hispanic is not a racial group).

(Just a side note, it would be helpful if you used a source that actually quoted it's own sources outside of a paywall. Only way to find the source of your information is to join statista.com)

 

What do you feel was unintentional?