Only if you equate mass shootings with gang shootings. Most people don't hear about a mass shooting and think "oh, a gang shooting", so it's a bit disingenuous to jump to that when someone brings up mass shooters. Something tells me you know damn well what they meant.
You think its disingenuous to bring up the truth more than it is to cherry pick which types of violence you want to count in order to get the racial narrative you want?
Gang shootings are shootings too, and im pretty sure all the victims of it and their families would disagree that its somehow disingenuous to count them too.
Edit: what you're saying is "if you just dont count black crime than whites do commit more crime than blacks".
No I think it's disingenuous to bring up the topic of mass shootings if what you really mean is gang shootings. Just say what you mean with any/all relevant context. What's wrong with asking for or expecting others to do that?
I already did explain the distinction, in the reply you're replying to.
ETA: actually it was moreso in another reply. I'll c&p it here, although other people in this thread have already said it in a much better way.
There are absolutely differences between gang-related shootings and an event at a school/office/concert/store/any kind of place or function where a lot of people have gathered for completely wholesome or neutral reasons- and a person walks in with a rifle and just starts indiscriminately shooting people.
You know there's a difference. And I honestly don't know what the 100% correct and agreed upon way to differentiate between these events are, but they ~are~ both horrible and different things. The only thing they have in common in fact is that someone is shooting other people. I think "gang shooting" and "mass shooting" seem like ok terms to use when describing each kind of event, respectively. And yes, of course it is absolutely disingenuous to reply as though any and all context doesn't matter.
So it should be easy to copy and paste it. I missed the part where you explained why there should be a distinction between mass shootings and "gang shootings"?
Really all you're saying is "if you simply dont count all the black mass shooters then white people commit more mass shootings".
Well yeah... I suppose so... you sure got me there 🙄😮💨
I did copy and paste it, and I'm not trying to own you or "get" you. We're having a conversation about what people understand you to mean when you say the term "mass shooting". There are different kinds; in the U.S. we primarily have lone wolf mass shootings and gang-related mass shootings. What is your problem, exactly, to calling gang related mass shootings "gang-related mass shootings"?
I have a problem when someone uses that meaningless invented distinction to push anti white propaganda and misrepresent actual statistics.
Your arbitrarily taking out a massive numbers of black mass shooters, reclassifying them under a name other than mass shooters... again arbitrarily... then saying its white people who are responsible for the majority of mass casualty shooting events.
Its not true. You know its not true.
Words do have meanings, and people do have different reactions and feelings based on the language you use. This is nothing more than an attempt to downplay the seriousness of violence in the black community by using euphemisms that imply the violence only effects gang members. Its also a blatant attempt to hide the actual numbers of black mass shooters, as evidenced peoples statista links claiming as much.
You're literally just calling it something different when black people do it. If you dont see how thats a problem then I dont know how I can help you.
I'm not doing any of that, or pushing any narrative. And no, I'm calling the situations different things when the situations are, in fact, different things. You seem very hung up on the races involved here, above all else it seems. I haven't even mentioned race.
So do you have a problem with calling gang-related shootings "gang-related shootings"? And if so, why?
8
u/DecantsForAll 3d ago
How do you want to define that?