The ones which get more attention are the random shootings, the ones where people are just shopping and a psychopath comes in and starts shooting. The mass shootings where people are targeted end up as local news. Same sort of concept, largely, where a random kidnapping would make massive news while an Amber alert of a dad taking his kid from mom would not be. The random acts are the ones where people are scared shitless, believing they can avoid the other kind of situations, so it doesn't register.
All statistical "facts" that make monoliths out of groups and confuse the tail for the dog are bullshit, yes. But it is a fact that most mass shootings in this country since they have been tracked as such are carried out by people who fit under the categories of white and male. Probably because for all the time that has been tracked so far, the largest demographic was/is white, and shooters tend to be male. This doesn't mean white males are shooters-- but we have allowed that kind of bullshit inference about groups of people for a long time. Now it is coming up for white males. Maybe we shouldn't make those kinds of inferences about, say, black males.
We all know what people mean when they talk about "white" people. They aren't talking about Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, the immigrant from Syria. It's extremely disingenuous to point to stuff like "Census" data and try to make a technical claim that this dude is "white" - because we all know that's not what people are talking about. The words "White Supremacy" were being thrown out quite a bit, which makes it very clear that people aren't thinking about Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, the immigrant. They're thinking about slavery/racism and trying to tie events to the narrative being continuously built around America's supposedly racist institutions. Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa doesn't tie into that history. He doesn't fit the narrative.
That holds true if you take out gang violence but that's biggest driver of mass shooting in this country.
The ones that get the most attention are the ones that fit the media's narratives about gun control and systemic racism.
So, if a black guy went into a shopping market and shot 10 people randomly, it wouldn't make national news or garner much attention?
What people "mean" when they talk about "white" people are the ones they want to see as "white." That you don't want to see middle eastern decent as "white" is more about you, and less about accuracy. Middle easterners have done a lot of racism and slavery through history. They absolutely fall in to it.
Which is a motivational difference. Random acts vs monetary reasons. There is an easy bifurcation, and random acts tend to be white males. Random acts tend to involve mental health issues. Gang related acts are not white males, nor mental issues, and are often drug related. If we changed drug laws, that wouldn't lessen random acts. Which means that tracking random acts different from gang related should exist. Because one is something we can address. Won't, but can.
How is it disingenuous?! It is literally the definition! People who were assuming it was a white person before we knew the perp that RETRACTED their statement are the ones who were/are disingenuous, because apparently they don't consider an Arab to be white. You're giving them a pass when you should be hammering them because it shows how the whole race paradigm falls apart quite quickly-- because it is a subjective, cultural artifact of division and control that should be moved past. You are zigging where you should have zagged.
Stop. We all (you, me, Float, everyone in this thread) know exactly what the people assuming it was a "white male" meant. It was 100% clear what they meant. You pretending that Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa from Syria fits into what they meant when they said "white male" is the disingenuous part. No one gives a shit who/what the government or the census or the law literally identifies as being a "white" person. We all know what she meant.
And, her statistics are? Far be it for me to give any amount of attention to a piece of shit, lying ass grifter like Owens (Who first came on the scene suing, and winning, a school district for racial discrimination.), but does she have some back up for the second statement? Because I can certainly produce statistics noting the sharp rise in hate crimes, including those against Asian-Americans. I mean, the #1 violent offender against white people are other white people, so I can only assume the "black on black crime" people like her are equally concerned about the "white on white crime" problem, too. Her response to the rise in attacks towards Asian-Americans is this smarmy, useless drive by post? God, she is [uck fay]ing useless, actually worse, always stirring up shit with no objective other than carrying on her grift.
It's sad when people would rather create a punchline than an attempt at a solution. But, that's who people are, all over, everywhere.
