Mass shooters in New Orleans park

[Gluemanz28]

Two groups shooting at each other. Not really a "mass shooting".

^^^^^ This^^^^^

The fact we all heard about it means it was reported. It's just not that interesting when criminals shoot at other criminals. You'd be surprised what happens that never makes the news.

And my opinion of why it is not being blasted across all social media is because more than likely the shooters on both sides are of the same race. If they were not then it would be a hate crime.

Hate is hate regardless of skin color.

 

[DRob]

The fact we all heard about it means it was reported. It's just not that interesting when criminals shoot at other criminals. You'd be surprised what happens that never makes the news.

Bingo! I'm personally aware that's been true since the late 60s. Even back then, there were people shot in Indy every night and it didn't make the "news".

 

[Kutnupe14]

Bingo! I'm personally aware that's been true since the late 60s. Even back then, there were people shot in Indy every night and it didn't make the "news".

There's a reason for that. I was directed to this by a white friend, and was initially somewhat offended looking at the title, but it made so much sense it's scary.

[video=youtube;1DxHL2i3cZo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DxHL2i3cZo[/video]

 

[chipbennett]

Beer is proof that god loves us. B Franklin.

He actually said that about wine, not beer, in a letter to Andre Morollet, in 1787 (or 1779 - I've seen both attributed):

Say What? Says Who? Benjamin Franklin on Beer ? or Not | Anchor Brewing Blog

We hear of the conversion of water into wine at the marriage in Cana, as of a miracle. But this conversion is, through the goodness of God, made every day before our eyes. Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, and which incorporates itself with the grapes to be changed into wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy!

Agreed, it sounds like two rival gangs happened to show up at the party.

...which is why we have an entire thread devoted to understanding the definition of "mass shooting". I would contend that two rival gangs taking their rivalry into a crowd of non-involved bystanders is not a "mass shooting". It is gang violence.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

He actually said that about wine, not beer, in a letter to Andre Morollet, in 1787 (or 1779 - I've seen both attributed):

Say What? Says Who? Benjamin Franklin on Beer ? or Not | Anchor Brewing Blog

We hear of the conversion of water into wine at the marriage in Cana, as of a miracle. But this conversion is, through the goodness of God, made every day before our eyes. Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, and which incorporates itself with the grapes to be changed into wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy!



...which is why we have an entire thread devoted to understanding the definition of "mass shooting". I would contend that two rival gangs taking their rivalry into a crowd of non-involved bystanders is not a "mass shooting". It is gang violence.

Beer/wine same basic process... But yes I have heard that he said it about wine before. Thank you much for providing the exact quote and where it is from.

And I agree with you on your second paragraph.

 

[pudly]

...which is why we have an entire thread devoted to understanding the definition of "mass shooting". I would contend that two rival gangs taking their rivalry into a crowd of non-involved bystanders is not a "mass shooting". It is gang violence.

I agree. Unfortunately, the article that I linked was far from clear in that regard or my OP would have been quite different, mentioning how 16 people being shot wasn't getting nearly as much coverage because it was by gangs.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

Rhino ' s talking quantum theory. I gotta stop staying up so late.

 

[nakinate]

Who has the time to get off work at 5, get home by 5:30, get cleaned up, have some dinner with the family and be out bangin by 6:15?

Ever hear of a day off?

 

[rob63]

There's a reason for that. I was directed to this by a white friend, and was initially somewhat offended looking at the title, but it made so much sense it's scary.

[video=youtube;1DxHL2i3cZo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DxHL2i3cZo[/video]

A good example of knowing your audience. Conservatives have been saying the same thing about rap music lyrics for 20 years and have been repeatedly laughed at. He repackages it as white racism and corporate greed and the TED audience gives him a standing ovation.

It was also interesting that he felt compelled to open his talk by showing all of those pictures of himself with black people and explaining how he got his nickname. A white man can't say something controversial like "you shouldn't listen to music that celebrates shooting each other" without first establishing his bona fides. The truly sad state of racial relations today.

 

[Kutnupe14]

A good example of knowing your audience. Conservatives have been saying the same thing about rap music lyrics for 20 years and have been repeatedly laughed at. He repackages it as white racism and corporate greed and the TED audience gives him a standing ovation.

It was also interesting that he felt compelled to open his talk by showing all of those pictures of himself with black people and explaining how he got his nickname. A white man can't say something controversial like "you shouldn't listen to music that celebrates shooting each other" without first establishing his bona fides. The truly sad state of racial relations today.

How is he repackaging it? He clearly states that our culture, both black and white, accept the practice. His point is completely valid, about what Americans (black and white) deem acceptable and unacceptable.
He provides his anecdotal history to prove he isn't some racist, as many black people would undoubtedly be upset that he is essentially claiming that black people are ok with the violence pervasive within many of their communities.

 

[rob63]

How is he repackaging it? He clearly states that our culture, both black and white, accept the practice. His point is completely valid, about what Americans (black and white) deem acceptable and unacceptable.

He repackages it as white racism and corporate greed as the root cause rather than black people choosing to listen to crap. I didn't say his point isn't valid, merely that he had to state it in a way that was acceptable to progressives in order to get them to listen to something conservatives have been saying for 20 years.

He provides his anecdotal history to prove he isn't some racist, as many black people would undoubtedly be upset that he is essentially claiming that black people are ok with the violence pervasive within many of their communities.

Precisely my point. Why do white people have to prove they aren't racist just to state the obvious? Yeah, yeah, I know, my white privilege is showing.

 

[Denny347]

17 people shot in Bunny Friend Park Sunday night: NOPD | NOLA.com

Multiple people shot into a crowd of 300 at an event at the park, injuring at least 17. Fortunately, it doesn't appeared that any are fatal. This happened Sunday evening. Not sure why this one isn't getting more wall-to-wall coverage like other mass shootings unless it doesn't fit the standard MSM template.

I'm sure the NRA will be blamed and once again it won't be NRA members doing the shooting. Sigh...

So we complain that the media hypercovers these shootings and now we complain that there is not enough coverage?

 

[OWGEM]

So we complain that the media hypercovers these shootings and now we complain that there is not enough coverage?

Winner winner chicken dinner!

Come guys, the OP's subject line is just like the mass media headlines on real mass shootings. Nothing more than an attention getter.

 

[pudly]

So we complain that the media hypercovers [STRIKE]these[/STRIKE] some shootings and now we complain that there is not enough coverage?

FTFY

Absolutely. The point is that the degree of coverage is a political tool used to bias the public's understanding of the situation. I'm stating that it will be predictably "hypercovered" again if white groups perform such an attack or a white cop shoots an "unarmed black teenager". The level of coverage isn't based on whether there is a crime or how serious it is, but instead is being used to paint a picture of who is killing and who is being killed that is different than the facts/stats would state. As long as there is an obvious discrepancy, then complaining about over-covering some events and under-reporting others is warranted.

It is the same political tool that is keeping the regular weekly kill rates in Chicago from being compared to mass murders that occur periodically. It is the same political tool that keeps people from honestly talking about the far higher crime rates among young black males vs. other groups. That tool is called political correctness and it is used to suppress factual correctness.

 

[Kutnupe14]

He repackages it as white racism and corporate greed as the root cause rather than black people choosing to listen to crap. I didn't say his point isn't valid, merely that he had to state it in a way that was acceptable to progressives in order to get them to listen to something conservatives have been saying for 20 years.

Precisely my point. Why do white people have to prove they aren't racist just to state the obvious? Yeah, yeah, I know, my white privilege is showing.

Certainly corporate greed, but white racism? That's not implied at all. What part of that discussion illustrates that? He is clear in stating that the perception is held by all, i.e. blacks value their own lives less than they do white people, and white people value black lives less than their own. That's not repackaging. There's no way one can say the cause is simply and solely black people "listening to crap." That's ridiculous.

 

[pudly]

Winner winner chicken dinner!

Come guys, the OP's subject line is just like the mass media headlines on real mass shootings. Nothing more than an attention getter.

17 people being shot isn't really mass shooting???? My God man. How low do you have to sink to not recognize the inhumanity of that statement?

 

[chipbennett]

17 people being shot isn't really mass shooting???? My God man. How low do you have to sink to not recognize the inhumanity of that statement?

He's not diminishing the degree of human injury from the incident; rather, he is pointing out the political usage of the emotionally charged term, "mass shooting."

 

[pudly]

He's not diminishing the degree of human injury from the incident; rather, he is pointing out the political usage of the emotionally charged term, "mass shooting."

BS. It is a factually correct description. He isn't suggesting a better/more accurate term, but complaining about a factual statement. My only political statement was about the difference in coverage when a group of people are being shot.

 

[chipbennett]

BS. It is a factually correct description. He isn't suggesting a better/more accurate term, but complaining about a factual statement.

Not BS. That was the implication of him referring to "real mass shootings" - which you then twisted into some sort of affront to the people shot/injured in this incident.

If I may presume to speak for OWGEM (at least, this is my inference of what OWGEM said), what differentiates this incident from a "real mass shooting" is that the people shot/injured were not the intended targets; they were merely collateral damage, caught in the crossfire of gang members attempting to shoot each other. Their intent was not to shoot the people in the crowd; their rivalry merely spilled over into a crowded, public area.

EDIT:

My only political statement was about the difference in coverage when a group of people are being shot.

The "political statement" is the one made by the media, not you. Sorry for the confusion, if I wasn't clear earlier.

 

[pudly]

And still no one is offering a better, more accurate term for the event than "mass shooting". The fact that there were multiple shooters doesn't change the description at all. The fact that they had whatever form of disagreement before the shooting started doesn't change the event at all. Even calling this a "gang war" wouldn't change the description of this event at all.