Anecdotal statistics? Gosh who'da thought you'd go there. LOL. Next you going to claim convents are political organizations to only include nuns in your next round. It wouldn't surprise me if instead of counting perpetrators you'll attempt to add in some weighted equation claiming the number of victims matters. Go ahead, I fully expect distortion.
Do you REALLY believe your method would pass any sort of peer review? LOWhile teaching gun safety to his 12 year old daughter with a loaded gun, he shoots her in the shoulder. A few inches to the other side, she would be dead. This is not an isolated case. NRA actively markets "my first rifle", that is buy a gun to your kid at an young age. For what? Now imagine, the girl is a 50% - 50% prospect for mass shooting in her school.
In contrast, why do Asian population (Korean, Chinese, Indian, Vietnam) who are in the country do not think they need guns ? They don't buy guns for their kids, but lead them to excellence in education. They are the top performers in schools, and majority end up in Stanford, Harvard, Columbia, MIT and Princeton. They hold the highest paying private sector jobs, top per capita income among all Americans.
Looks like they practice their own culture and do not believe in the gun culture of the country.
Interesting...
Hard work and determination is what it takes to get ahead.
Some people have certain advantages over others be it intelligence, education, height, personality, good looks, etc. but you don't hear interest groups go on CNN and drone on and on about it.
And yes I would include race on that list. At one time race meant everything when getting a job or buying a house, but today? Its just one of many factors and in fact, government has made it an advantage to be a minority, in many cases.
So many minorities have "made it" in America today as to make "white privilege" a moot point.
...and the name in their culture or ethnicity. For example: a common name for a girl in Korea is Eun-hee, but in English she may be called June or Elaine or any number of names. An employer is more likely to hire someone named Elaine vs. Eun-hee. And if it's Elaine vs. Shaniqua, it wouldn't even be a close call. Shaniqua stands a much better chance against Eun-hee.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/02/jose-joe-job-discrimination_n_5753880.html
Race is one of many factors, but it's still the most important factor.
as they have overcome many obstacles, race being one of them.
-- Modified on 8/4/2015 8:52:39 PM
With Asians a lot of it has to do with the job they are applying for. If the job is tech related, a Kang Lee is every bit as likely to get hired as a Kathy Jones, but if the job is for something customer service related Kathy Jones is much more likely to get hired over either a Kang Lee, or Shaniqua Johnson, mainly because of fears of either a "ghetto or Asian" accent.
I will also agree that Elaine is much more likely to get hired than Shaniqua for just about every job. Stereotypes die hard, Asians, just like Latinos, have had to fight hard to create new stereotypes. I grew up hearing the term "lazy Mexican" over and over, Does ANYBODY still call Mexicans lazy as they now do all the shit work that neither blacks or whites or Asians want to do.?
I haven't done it but I'd be willing to bet the vast majority were Democrats, Independents or no affiliation even after normalizing the data to the percentage of the population that are Republican or lean Republican (25% to 40%). As for NRA members perpetrating such crimes, I'd bet the percentage is infinitesimally low.
I haven't done it but I'd be willing to bet the vast majority were Democrats, Independents or no affiliation even after normalizing the data to the percentage of the population that are Republican or lean Republican (25% to 40%). As for NRA members perpetrating such crimes, I'd bet the percentage is infinitesimally low.
A bet I would make though is that this guy isn't going to pick up the gauntlet you threw down for him and actually compile these numbers. That's too close to research.
I may have misunderstood your syntax, but my claim is the majority (ney, the vast majority) would be Democrats or Independents or no affiliation (as in the combined total of of all their numbers). In other words, the only things I claimed was that very few would be Republicans. I don't know what the break down is but I too suspect a majority (albeit maybe a small one) are no affiliation since the mentally ill tend to not be political. Maybe I should have hedged my bet and included political assassinations as well as mass murder, LOL. I'll take your bet that you think Democrats would come in last, or were you adding together the Republicans and Independents?
This would be time consuming to research as I doubt much of what the FBI investigations turned up was ever made public.
Independents, or no affiliation. Even the guy who claimed 99% of mass shooters are Dems admitted that was untrue.
But you are not going to take that bet are you?
Make a list of all the mass shootings for the past whatever, let's say 50 years. Now look up how many of the perpetrators were NRA members or even registered Republicans.
I haven't done it but I'd be willing to bet the vast majority were Democrats, Independents or no affiliation even after normalizing the data to the percentage of the population that are Republican or lean Republican (25% to 40%). As for NRA members perpetrating such crimes, I'd bet the percentage is infinitesimally low.
Vast? I actually doubt it. So the difference in our two characterizations boils down to, are there more mass shooters that are Democrats than Republicans. I'll actually take that bet, provided I understood you correctly in that you think mass shooters affiliate more with Republicans than Democrats. BTW, is that normalized data? It probably doesn't matter.
BTW, you should leave your GOP House candidate hyperbole out of it, unless you're intentionally trying to cloud the issue.
it still should have been apparent to you that even Bud recognizes that your bet proposal is equivalent to saying “heads I win, tails you lose.”
What I tried to post was “the vast majority of mass shooters are Republicans, independents, or no affiliation.” The “no affiliation” category – or more accurately the “no known affiliation” category - subsumes so many of the mass shooters as to make the other categories irrelevant. So you could change it to “the vast majority of mass shooters are gender changing celebrities, independents, or no affiliation” and still win.
Of course, there are no records on mass shooter party affiliation and, unless you define “mass shooting,” –including domestic mass shooting totally skews the numbers) you cannot even determine the number of such events to get started
after normalization, the Republican representation in perpetrators of mass shootings is most likely far below any and all of the other groups making up the political spectrum. It would be even more true for NRA members.
you have now (unwisely) changed your bet from all to “any and all of the other groups making up the political spectrum.”
Here is my Republican mass shooter, Republican National Committee worker Dannie Baker, who thought a good way to solve the immigration problem was to open fire on a bunch of Chilean students.
You didn’t really define what you consider “far below” :
“the Republican representation in perpetrators of mass shootings is most likely far below any and all of the other group”
but I’d say you need at least four Independents to win the bet. Unfortunately for you, there are not 4 “Independents” who committed mass shootings, so you lose again.
Haven’t you learned yet never to bet with me? LO
Anecdotal statistics? Gosh who'da thought you'd go there. LOL. Next you going to claim convents are political organizations to only include nuns in your next round. It wouldn't surprise me if instead of counting perpetrators you'll attempt to add in some weighted equation claiming the number of victims matters. Go ahead, I fully expect distortion.
Do you REALLY believe your method would pass any sort of peer review? LO
From the NRA website that engaged in mass shootings and you win.