A PolitiFact worth pointing to

If "Mass Shooting" is defined as "an incident in which four or more people, excluding the perpetrator(s), are shot in one location at roughly the same time" then the race of the mass shooting perpetrators in the U.S. in 2020 is as follows when race of the perpetrator is known:

73% Black
14% White
14% Latino.

ETA: The trick is defining "mass shootings" as requiring a certain number of deaths rather than a certain number of people shot. Recently 15 people were shot in an incident in Chicago. Only 2 died. Mass Shooting?

Blacks are over-represented among offenders in each category of aggressive crime: in homicide at a level 315% greater than their representation in the general population, in sexual assault at a level 404% as great, in aggravated assault at 274% greater than their representation in the general population.

LINK

Democrats like to perform their mass genocide on babies. 300,000 black babies killed each year.

quote:

---

Have a feeling that this would at best be "half true" if it was against a leftist opinion

---

At worst whites have committed mass shootings in proportion to their population. At best they are slightly less then what you would expect depending on whose data you use.

Polifact should rate this half truth. As always, their analysis is better then their biased conclusions.

This is a solid reference and I appreciate your sharing it. I will carry forth with this in future discussions,

quote:

---

I do not doubt your figures but would ask for source.

---

New York Times - nearly 3/4 of victims and assailants in 2015's mass shootings in which race could be identified were black

Race (when known) of mass shooting perpetrators in 2020

quote:

---

Top ten cities for unsolved mass shootings
1
Miami
3
2
Houston
2
3
Phoenix
2
4
Oakland
2
5
Gresham
2
6
Bloomingdale
1
7
Mohnton
1
8
Memphis
1
9
Rochester
1
10
Thibodaux
1

---

Thibodaux officially on the map

quote:

---

Such a stupid delineation.

---

I think what they want to track are psychopaths who kill just to kill. That is to say, people with no political or religious motive. People like the Las Vegas shooter or Columbine or Sandy Hook. In other words "rampage killers."

quote:

---

So if I was Muslim and wanted to kill heathens, well even if I killed 10, that's not a mass shooting because it wasn't indiscriminate?

---

I think they would define that as an act of terrorism. Terrorism is defined as having a political or religious motive that looks to force change or intimidate government officials (or the public). The IRA would be a good example of classic terrorism (We are tired of the English fricking with us, so we're going to start bombing). Al Qaeda is another example.

However, traditionally terrorism has been defined as being organized and a conspiracy (a network of people acting in unison, often with a command structure). What we've seen in recent years usually doesn't fit that definition exactly. I would say most of the attacks nowadays are "lone wolf" terrorism. People who aren't even members of a group but are acting in sympathy to the group or cause.

Again, I understand what you're saying. I am just pointing out that there is value in breaking it down like this for sociological study. If we have people with no terrorist motives going around gunning down people, it's good for society to find out exactly why this happens. We already know why ISIS or Al Qaeda do what they do, so we need to understand why these other people are acting out.