US continues to go backward...

Holy sh*t, yea... you got me. My entire ploy was to include 'white women' in the stats. 🤦‍♂️

I don't care. No. I don't. Not in the context of this discussion. We are talking about mass shooters. So yea, you want to open up a conversation thread about violent crime, non-violent crime, etc., and about the idea of systemic racism inside the Justice System? That's where we are going now? If so, start a new topic.

I was TALKING ABOUT MASS SHOOTINGS.

Let me say it again...

I WAS TALKING ABOUT MASS SHOOTINGS.
If you want to add data derogatory data about a race that was not the subject then say you don’t care and SCREAM about other exculpatory data because of a subtle difference in the type of data, that is fine. As I said, it lets me know the type of person I am dealing with.
 
I would say yes.



And on this one, it's a great video and I think everyone needs to watch it. I agree with 95% of it. But I'm also torn on a few things. Mostly the proverbial "they." He tries to get specific with his "covert elite" label. I just don't know if it's a small group trying to control the populace. I lean toward it's a small group who doesn't give a crap about the populace and will make money in any way they can. Hate, division, and anger have been commoditized. And they sell. People crave them. It's big tobacco all over again. They have a product that's addictive and dangerous to society but they'll lie, lobby, and cheat all they can to stay in business. I think it may be that simple. There's no big plan.

That doesn't mean that politicians and large corporations don't use division to their advantage. Sure they do.

And then there's the Elon Musks and Peter Thiels of the world. They actually seem to believe in something and that's honestly scarier. Anyway...I don't know s*** about f***.
I fully agree.

I also think that much of the intended audience would yawn at “they are powerful people who use you to make money” but get off on “it is a cabal that wants to control you” even though the outcome doesn’t change much at all.
 
Not here for the banter or arguing, but the first part of his argument is missing a key data point. Hispanics are missing from the first pie chart. On that same website, under the "ethnicity" tab, it's separated by (Hispanics) and (Non-Hispanics). Hispanics are 29.8% or 46,040. There's no conclusive evidence which group of "race" the Hispanic population got grouped into, but it seems as if they almost dumped them into the "white" pie chart for whatever reason.

Only reason I'm bringing this up is the gentlemen making the claim to debunk Kirk didn't thoroughly research it and missed a huge data point. Doesn't make his or Kirk's claim correct, but it goes to show the narrative pushed by folks on either side of the aisle when trying to push a topic of debate. So, Grindz too, is trying to create divide by cherry picking data points and creating a talking point, when the fact is - neither of them were correct.

I don't often post in these subjects but I do read a lot of banter between everyone for shitter entertainment, so carry on :)


I’m a white guy. I’m often on some form asked:
-white, non-hispanic
-white, hispanic

Never:
-white, African-Amercan
-white, non-African-American

I don’t disagree with you but it does show how arbitrary and trival these “ethnicity” differences should be. Of course, reality is they can have major consequences for people’s lives.
 
If you want to add data derogatory data about a race that was not the subject then say you don’t care and SCREAM about other exculpatory data because of a subtle difference in the type of data, that is fine. As I said, it lets me know the type of person I am dealing with.

Let's start this over. The question was 'mass shootings'. HacklemanPoke mentioned it, the PF5 said that most mass shootings were carried out by "straight white males". I asked what was his definition of a 'mass shooting'. That's all I asked (asked it 4 times actually). YOU then chime in with your 2 cents by saying to my question "Trying to argue whether 2,3,4, or 57 people are required to meet the definition so you can minimize the stats is a pretty pathetic."

Then again, I stated "The claim of 'most mass shooters are white men' needs to be backed up with proof." I wasn't attacking anyone or saying anything derogatory. At all. GratefulPoke was actually the first and only one to post numbers... which showed 155 total mass shootings since 1982. I ADMITTELY made a mistake by not excluding white women when I did my percentages. I explained why I brought up the question in the first place. You continue to chime in with this 'I had some agenda' thing.

The ENTIRE point of my question (again) was to point out how liberal media, liberal politicians, etc. inflate 'mass shooting' numbers and then act like it's all white men. If you use REAL incidents of mass shootings, they are over 50% white the past 40+ years. If you use the liberal media/politicians definition of mass shootings... they aren't mostly white. It's picking and choosing to fit an anti-gun narrative.
 
Let's start this over. The question was 'mass shootings'. HacklemanPoke mentioned it, the PF5 said that most mass shootings were carried out by "straight white males". I asked what was his definition of a 'mass shooting'. That's all I asked (asked it 4 times actually). YOU then chime in with your 2 cents by saying to my question "Trying to argue whether 2,3,4, or 57 people are required to meet the definition so you can minimize the stats is a pretty pathetic."

Then again, I stated "The claim of 'most mass shooters are white men' needs to be backed up with proof." I wasn't attacking anyone or saying anything derogatory. At all. GratefulPoke was actually the first and only one to post numbers... which showed 155 total mass shootings since 1982. I ADMITTELY made a mistake by not excluding white women when I did my percentages. I explained why I brought up the question in the first place. You continue to chime in with this 'I had some agenda' thing.

The ENTIRE point of my question (again) was to point out how liberal media, liberal politicians, etc. inflate 'mass shooting' numbers and then act like it's all white men. If you use REAL incidents of mass shootings, they are over 50% white the past 40+ years. If you use the liberal media/politicians definition of mass shootings... they aren't mostly white. It's picking and choosing to fit an anti-gun narrative.

You wrote three paragraphs and left out/ignored the ONLY thing you wrote that has anything to do with black men?
Yes, and 5.7% of the population commit 17% of all mass shootings.
That's not 'starting over.' That is a whitewash.

Multiple posts and the 3 paragraphs above sure are a ton of words to write just to avoid writing a single simple sentence like, "Hmmm, when I posted the black man mass murder rates, I didn't realize our justice system could be so biased against them."

As I said, thank you for letting me know, and now emphatically and repeatedly confirming, the kind of person I am dealing with.
 
You wrote three paragraphs and left out/ignored the ONLY thing you wrote that has anything to do with black men?

That's not 'starting over.' That is a whitewash.

Multiple posts and the 3 paragraphs above sure are a ton of words to write just to avoid writing a single simple sentence like, "Hmmm, when I posted the black man mass murder rates, I didn't realize our justice system could be so biased against them."

As I said, thank you for letting me know, and now emphatically and repeatedly confirming, the kind of person I am dealing with.

You can pretend whatever you wish to pretend in regards to what I said. You want to pretend I'm a member of the Klan, go ahead. I know the type of person you are as well.
 

Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls For United States to Be Split Up, Declares Country ‘No Longer Safe’ For Anyone​


link
Since she thinks the country is unsafe, why doesn't she demand Open Carry Everywhere! Was glad to see at least 2 prominent Republicans disagree with her.

The refusal to have sensible gun control laws is what is causing lots of trouble. I don't see how Red States could be any safer to live in since Red Flag laws may not even be allowed there. To red state conservatives, "Open Carry Everywhere", would possibly be the response to increasing violence done by the use of guns.
 
Last edited:
Since she thinks the country is unsafe, why doesn't she demand Open Carry Everywhere! Was glad to see at least 2 prominent Republicans disagree with her.

The refusal to have sensible gun control laws is what is causing lots of trouble. I don't see how Red States could be any safer to live in since Red Flag laws may not even be allowed there. To red state conservatives, "Open Carry Everywhere", would possibly be the response to increasing violence done by the use of guns.

What gun laws would you like to see included into the current (estimated by some) 20,000 laws in the United States? Not an argument, just honestly curious what you think would stop people from killing others?
 
I mean, she did misquote him. Most likely read that online and reposted it as a real quote.

Hey, there you go again.......

And, no, she didn't misquote. He said it. I'm sure your brain will find some bizarre way to say that what he said isn't what he said because this is a white guy and a black woman so you already know who made the mistake.

 
You can pretend whatever you wish to pretend in regards to what I said. You want to pretend I'm a member of the Klan, go ahead. I know the type of person you are as well.
I'd love to see what specifically I said that was "pretend?"
 
What gun laws would you like to see included into the current (estimated by some) 20,000 laws in the United States? Not an argument, just honestly curious what you think would stop people from killing others?
If 20,000 laws can't stop mass shootings, then why don't we just give up and accept that we live in the greatest gun culture on earth. Let's make overall body armor the hot new fashion, so it will work better than it did for Kirk.
 
Back
Top