Publix Caves To Anti-Gun Protesters, Another Virtue Signal Fail That Will Lead T

Publix Caves To Anti-Gun Protesters, Another Virtue Signal Fail That Will Lead To Revenue Loss

Publix Caves To Anti-Gun Protesters, Another Virtue Signal Fail That Will Lead To Revenue Loss

Comments
No. 1-4
FelixCulpa
FelixCulpa

Below is a useful article. Personally I'm inclined to go with the broader definition, since I think a mass shooting and a multiple homicide aren't necessarily synonymous. Just because somebody is a lousy shot doesn't mean they can't be an evil sonofabitch. I do understand your point of view that gang violence shouldn't be taken into consideration since it has punitive and/or profit based motive, but I don't agree with you because I think it's it's overly specific. Saying something is gang related means that somebody has to decide whether or not it's gang related, and once other people start making decisions for us about what data is relevant they're affecting the accuracy of any conclusions that can be drawn from that data set.

FelixCulpa
FelixCulpa

Agreed. Not all mass shootings are school shootings. All ducks are not Donald. But to say that because it's not Donald it's somehow not a duck is not true, or that when four plus people get shot that it's somehow different because of "2 entirely separate motives" (which I we can't definitively know, and or prove) is disingenuous. To say that because the mainstream media doesn't cover it, it's not important is an odd point of view. To minimize the the impact of something because it's not newsworthy is more deceptive than asking people to recognize that these type of events ARE more common than they realized. If you want to use aggregate data based on numbers, you don't get to cherry pick the data that happens to agree with your viewpoint.

TomBinnz
TomBinnz

Editor

I never said that. However I'll answer that question anyway.

In principle, no. In aggregating data, yes. Drive by shootings and gang violence are used as a way to inflate the "mass shooting" statistics. Taking a situation where one gang/cartel shoots and wounds a group of rival persons (4 or more), and then compiling that data along side a situation where a crazed person shoots up a school, and then using all that data to push a narrative that "mass/school shootings" are rampant is intellectually dishonest. You're taking 2 entirely separate motives and situations and correlating them as if they're the exact same thing. This tactic is used to present the idea to less informed people that school type mass shootings are far more common than they actually are. The overwhelming majority of defined "mass shootings" are gang related shootings in inner cities, but the data is presented as though these are all random mass killings. When the general public hears the term "mass shooting" they immediately think of situations like Parkland or SandyHook, when in fact the overwhelming majority of the data is actually reflecting gang wars not school shootings

FelixCulpa
FelixCulpa

Whoa bud, back up. Is there a good reason why 4 or more people getting shot in an "inner city drive-by" is less important than 4 or more people getting shot some other way?

Stories