Post: #1

CNN is running this article on their homepage today:

Quote:Who commits mass shootings?

By Dana Ford, CNN
Updated 5:03 PM ET, Sat June 27, 2015

The man who opened fire at a Charleston church last week joined a list many would like to forget.

Dylann Roof. Adam Lanza. James Holmes. Jared Loughner. Eric Harris. Dylan Klebold.

Their names stir painful memories and conjure images of hate and violence. The killers have other characteristics in common too: They either were, or are, young, white and male.

Are young, white men more likely than anyone else to become mass murderers?

Well, it's complicated. Analysts say a variety of factors could be at play.

"What made Dylann Roof do what he did? You know, I mean, that's the question, isn't it? I don't know," Jeffrey Swanson, professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University, told CNN's Don Lemon.

"There are pieces of the puzzle, and you put them all on the jigsaw board, and you're still going to have a big hole there. What I do know is that violent behavior -- whether it's serious violence or minor violence in populations -- is never just one thing. It's not a one thing problem. It's going to be an accumulation of things, kind of a whole cocktail of factors," he said.

Here's a look at some of those characteristics:

Race

According to data compiled by Mother Jones magazine, which looked at mass shootings in the United States since 1982, white people -- almost exclusively white men -- committed some 64% of the shootings.

The examples are infamous. Roof and the Charleston church massacre. Lanza and the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Holmes and the slaughter inside an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater.

Black people committed close to 16% of the mass shooting Mother Jones looked at, while Asians were responsible for around 9%. People identified as either Latino, Native American and unknown rounded out the study.

"If you look at the whole list, it turns out that whites and blacks are pretty proportionate to their population, very close," said Dave Cullen, author of the book "Columbine," which tells the story of the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Harris and Klebold, the shooters there, were white.

Historically, Latinos and Asians have been the exception.

The Virginia Tech massacre was carried out by Seung-Hui Cho, who was born in South Korea.

"Latinos are almost nowhere to be seen," Cullen told CNN's "New Day." "Asians continue to be heavily overrepresented -- more than two and a half times their size in the population."

Whites make up about 63% of the U.S. population, blacks 13%, and Asians 5%, according to the latest census numbers. Latinos account for some 17% of the total population.

Gender

Much more than race, gender appears to have a direct correlation on whether or not someone becomes a killer.

"Murder is a man's crime," said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University.

Fox, who disagrees with the criteria Mother Jones used to report on mass shootings, offered various explanations: Men are often more likely to own a gun, to be trained and comfortable around firearms. They often have poorer support systems, and are less likely than women to share their feelings.

Men are responsible for some 90% of all murders. In fact, the only two women included in the Mother Jones study were Jennifer San Marco and Cherie Lash Rhoades.

San Marco, a former postal worker, killed seven people in 2006, then herself. Rhoades opened fire at a Native American tribal office in Alturas, California, last year. When she ran out of ammunition she grabbed a butcher knife and attacked another person.

"Women tend to see violence as a last resort, as a self-defense mechanism. You use violence if you have to, if there's no other way out," Fox said. "Men tend to use violence as an offensive weapon, to show them who's boss."

Why so many killers are male

Mental illness

Grant Duwe, director of research and evaluation at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, compiled his own numbers for mass public shootings, finding 160 cases between 1915-2013.

Of those, 97 involved shooters who had either been diagnosed with a serious mental illness, or showed signs of one.

"The 61% is actually a minimum estimate," said Duwe, who is also author of the book "Mass Murder in the United States: A History."

"The further back we go in time, we just don't have information as to whether or not they had a mental illness, though in all likelihood, based on all the evidence we have, they most likely did," he said.

Duwe found the most common illness associated with mass public shootings was paranoid schizophrenia, a type of schizophrenia in which the person has delusions of being plotted against or persecuted.

In recent memory, Loughner -- the man who killed six people and wounded former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona -- was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

He is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole after pleading guilty last year to 19 charges in exchange for the government not seeking the death penalty.

Holmes, who is currently on trial for killing 12 people at the movie theater in Colorado, has been diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorder, his court-appointed psychiatrist said in testimony. Holmes has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

Duwe was careful to differentiate between correlation and causation.

"This is not to say that someone that has a serious mental illness is going to go commit a mass public shooting, but what it does suggest is that it is a risk factor," he said.

Everyone on RVF knows the media has an agenda against the straight white male. Whats different here is now they are directly saying it rather than just making the implication.

The only conclusion you make from this data is the possibility that Asians and Blacks are slightly more likely and Latinos considerably less likely to commit these types of crimes. Due to a relatively small sample size, I would conclude that this is statistically irrelevant and proves only one thing: nutjobs exist among all races in nearly equal proportions.

I'll take it a step further with the following hypothesis: Latinos are statistically less likely to perpetrate such crimes because they are mostly first and second generation immigrants. They are too busy working, participating in cultural activities and spending time in close-knit, traditional family units, which are activities associated with good mental health.

The point that is made to the majority of readers who only read the first few paragraphs: white men are dangerous killers.

Post: #2

The funny thing is the article basically refutes it's own headline by including those statistics that show the only group disproportionately committing shootings are asians. Perfect example of using salacious headlines to convince people with low reading comprehension of the exact opposite of the facts.

Post: #3

Of course, they don't mention all the other mass killers of other races.

Standard narrative of SJW hacks.

Post: #4

(06-27-2015 05:38 PM)RIslander Wrote:  Everyone on RVF knows the media has an agenda against the straight white male. Whats different here is now they are directly saying it rather than just making the implication.

The only conclusion you make from this data is the possibility that Asians and Blacks are slightly more likely and Latinos considerably less likely to commit these types of crimes. Due to a relatively small sample size, I would conclude that this is statistically irrelevant and proves only one thing: nutjobs exist among all races in nearly equal proportions.

I'll take it a step further with the following hypothesis: Latinos are statistically less likely to perpetrate such crimes because they are mostly first and second generation immigrants. They are too busy working, participating in cultural activities and spending time in close-knit, traditional family units, which are activities associated with good mental health.

The point that is made to the majority of readers who only read the first few paragraphs: white men are dangerous killers.

Most mass shootings are done by people on psych meds, especially SSRIs.They come with a black box warning explicitly warning against homicide and suicide ideation. I would make the guess that white males are more likely to perpetrate a mass shooting because they are the ones being drugged. You start a child off with drugs to "help him focus" in the classroom (in other words, to make him stop being a rambunctious boy) and later it's drugs to make him "happy". I don't know the stats, but I would guess that there are far more white people in psychiatric therapy than other groups. And they do love to push pills...

Post: #5

Mass murders is narrow. Why not just go by homicides?

Oh wait, because then the narrative would be demolished.

Also, they are drawing killings from a time when whites were a bigger part of the population so it's a little skewed I imagine.

Post: #6

Six complete garbage white guys who no one even cared about in a country with a population of 319 million make an entire race mass killers. Interesting.

Post: #7

That is probably the only study which matches population distribution for the most with a few percentage points off so all is does is prove all races have an equal amount of mass murders based on percentages.

I'm sure they also don't include gang shootings where multiple people die. By definition that is a mass murder because multiple people are killed at the same location without a cooling off period between killings.

Post: #8

They don't include gang shootings, which is bullshit

Post: #9

Also no mention of the fact that men aren't simply more likely to commit violent crimes, but more likely to be victims of them.
Keep pushing that 1 in 4 rape statistic, though.

Post: #10

You guys are being a bit paranoid.

Top third of the article can be summarized as: "Are whites more likely to commit mass shootings? No."

The figures presented in the article provides evidence that whites are not disproportionately responsible for mass shootings.

64% (shootings done by whites since 1982) and 63% (proportion of whites as of the last census) are statistically indistinguishable, and the quote from Cullen reflects that. In fact, once you account for the notion that the proportion of whites has decreased over time, you may find that whites are responsible for disproportionately fewer mass shootings, at a statistically significant rate.

Bump .64 up to .645 and .63 down to .625, to account for possible rounding in a statistically conservative way. Then, use Duwe's number of 160 for mass shootings since 1915. Thus, one can see that the number for 1982 and on would be much lower than 160, so 160 provides a very tight estimate for the standard error of shootings since 1982. Nonetheless, you will find that the implied standard error on the proportion of sampled whites since 1982 would be sqrt((.625 * (1 - .625)) / 160) ~= .0383, confirming that the .645 - .625 = .02 difference is immaterial.

However, statistics are but a tool of the white patriarchal power structure, so you never know.

Post: #11

Wow, no shit, this is the main headline on CNN.com. Amazing.

Post: #12

(06-27-2015 07:41 PM)Kabal Wrote:  You guys are being a bit paranoid.

Top third of the article can be summarized as: "Are whites more likely to commit mass shootings? No."

It could be summarized as you wrote, absolutely. But they decided not to; instead of saying "no" they chose to say "it's complicated" (quote from 4th and 5th paragraph):

"Are young, white men more likely than anyone else to become mass murderers?

Well, it's complicated. Analysts say a variety of factors could be at play."

"It's complicated" is a sort of euphemistic pop-speak way of saying "yes" (e.g. Girl 1: "did you and your boyfriend break up?" Girl 2: " well . . . it's complicated" means yes they did in fact break up).

But as you pointed out, the data shows that it isn't complicated at all; the proportion of whites committing mass murders is basically exactly proportional to their percentage of the population. Instead of saying that outright they separate those numbers by six whole paragraphs and lead it to an intelligent reader to put it all together.

How many intelligent readers are out there these days? Is it likely that the writers at CNN expect the average reader to put all that information together themselves? Or do they know that most people will read the headlines, maybe the first couple paragraphs, and then skim through the rest, which would give you the vague impression that "analysts" and "experts" agree that serial killers are all white men?

Post: #13

This is the message 95% of people who visit CNN will get. The walls of text that appear for the few that actually click the article will make absolutely no difference whatsoever.

Post: #14

Are black Crips and Mexican MS13 members who have murdered multiple people not mass murderers?

Post: #15

(06-27-2015 06:35 PM)realologist Wrote:  That is probably the only study which matches population distribution for the most with a few percentage points off so all is does is prove all races have an equal amount of mass murders based on percentages.

I'm sure they also don't include gang shootings where multiple people die. By definition that is a mass murder because multiple people are killed at the same location without a cooling off period between killings.

Not quite the same. Gang shootings are a lot like military casualties, there is an existing real (not delusional, or paranoid belief) enemy that is likely trying to actively kill you in an established violent dispute.For Example- the St. Valentine's day massacre would not be considered a mass shooting due to gang related nature of the act.

Post: #16

A perfect example of a female typist deciding what her article would say long before she performed any actual journalism.

Post: #17

So Asians are the most over represented as mass shooters? Interesting, because Asian-Americans tend to have the lowest crime rates overall.

Does anyone have a cultural explanation for why that could be the case?

Post: #18

(06-27-2015 08:56 PM)BlueOcean Wrote:  So Asians are the most over represented as mass shooters? Interesting, because Asian-Americans tend to have the lowest crime rates overall.

Does anyone have a cultural explanation for why that could be the case?

Mass killings are often done by sexually frustrated beta incels, and there's a lot of asians and white males in that category.

Post: #19

(06-27-2015 08:42 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 06:35 PM)realologist Wrote:  That is probably the only study which matches population distribution for the most with a few percentage points off so all is does is prove all races have an equal amount of mass murders based on percentages.

I'm sure they also don't include gang shootings where multiple people die. By definition that is a mass murder because multiple people are killed at the same location without a cooling off period between killings.

Not quite the same. Gang shootings are a lot like military casualties, there is an existing real (not delusional, or paranoid belief) enemy that is likely trying to actively kill you in an established violent dispute.For Example- the St. Valentine's day massacre would not be considered a mass shooting due to gang related nature of the act.

I understand that the mentality is different but many gang shootings are murdering multiple people in one instance which is by definition a mass murder.

And many times these gangs attack other gangs when they offer no threat and they are not engaged in a shoot out. They hit them at a barbecue, leaving school or at a party.

Consider this as well. Most hitmen are not considered serial killers. In reality that is exactly what they are. They are for hire serial killers whose motive is money instead of the other psychological reasons serial killers kill.

Post: #20

The reason mass murdering is narrow is I believe it's three people without a cooling off period.
Killing three people is not easy.

So when looked at with broader violent crime rates it probably just means that whites (and asians) are better at killing even though they do it less.

Post: #21

CNN has not put out something meaningful since before America invaded Iraq in the early 2000's. This substantiates that fact.

Post: #22

Fuck them. We should first find out which of those attacks were not false flags - very few would be remaining. The media is a lying heap of crud from top to bottom which is employing useful fools in service to their great corporate overlords.

Most of us know what they are up to - destruction of the family, demonization of the white cis male, praising of multi-culturalism, taking away the guns, erecting a 1984 style dictatorship etc.

Post: #23

(06-28-2015 01:47 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  white cis male

I think it's a mistake to be using the word "cis", because it's use is an ideological concession to the leftists who started it.

I think the word "straight" is better. Especially since "straight" implies "fully functioning", and "bent" implies "fucked up in some way".

Post: #24

I prefer the term "normal" to "straight", which I find offensive.

Post: #25

(06-28-2015 02:05 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 01:47 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  white cis male

I think it's a mistake to be using the word "cis", because it's use is an ideological concession to the leftists who started it.

I think the word "straight" is better. Especially since "straight" implies "fully functioning", and "bent" implies "fucked up in some way".

I used that phrase only in terms of what feminists are calling us. Never ever do I use their stupid made up words in real life. They are making stuff up as they go along on their path to crazy land.