[dead]

That source is so unreliable that you may want to check those "claims" yourself, by hand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Controver...

Likely better source that disproves the "claims" in the article above, since perp demographics are in line with the male demographics of the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_S...

▲

5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

extropic-engine 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> But the vast majority of those 604 shootings are from gang members with many prior arrests shooting each other.

You are just blindly asserting this. Do you have any sources?

▲

insurancesucks 5 days ago | parent [-]

"Of 267 incidents this year classified as mass shootings by the Gun Violence Archive, nearly all can be tied to gang beefs, neighborhood arguments, robberies or domestic incidents that spiraled out of control.

Indiscriminate slaughter by a lone gunman blasting away at a store, school or some other public place is rare, according to a Washington Times analysis of the archive’s data, accounting for less than 4% of the total."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/16/street-braw...

This is 2022. These numbers roughly replicate for any year though.

▲

nullocator 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe the shooter was just having a "neighborhood argument" with Kirk?

I'm struggling to understand what point you're even trying to make? Gun violence is not a concern when we bucket it into categories? Some categories of gun violence are more okay than others?

▲

extropic-engine 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

sorry, but “the washington times,” a site whose design and name seems suspiciously chosen to mirror that of the more well known and respected washington post, is not a reputable source by any metric that is not in bad faith.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

it was founded in 1982 by a cult leader. try again

	▲	insurancesucks 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		My original comment a few up included a peer reviewed paper in science direct with similar findings across multiple years. Turn your brain on and critique the data, not the source