DOJ blocked 2018 report on white supremacist terrorism from Congress

[CitizenVectron]

To clarify, white supremacists were responsible for all race-based terrorism in 2018. There were other attacks that were politically-based. But even including them, white supremacist attacks outnumbered all others.

 

Quote

The document, dated April 15, 2019, shows 25 of the 46 individuals allegedly involved in 32 different domestic terrorism incidents were identified as white supremacists. It was prepared by New Jersey’s Office of Homeland Security Preparedness, one of the main arteries of information sharing, and sent throughout the DHS fusion center network as well as federal agencies, including the FBI.

 

[Reputator]

Well isn't that something.

[silentbob]

Are we really going to be shocked anymore by how corrupt this government is? Another day and another *shock face* They did what?!? Now rinse and repeat cause more shit will drop again soon. 

[RedSoxFan9]

what about the antifa super soldiers?

[SuperSpreader]

But what about the Mexicans

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

1 hour ago, 2user1cup said:

But what about the Mexicans

Between being hunted in Walmart’s and crammed into internment camps, I’m surprised we haven’t seen Mexicans shooting up ICE locations or camps of white supremacists. 

[thewhyteboar]

Just great work here.

[Reputator]

13 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

Just great work here.

 

Flagrantly calls it "black identy extremists" but refuses to call "white supremacy" what it is.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

When was the last mass shooting by a “black lives matters” activist? 

 

 

Fucking racist ass bullshit. 

 

If those activists did start getting militant we’d start seeing Republican gun control bills, just like when the Black Panthers rose up and patrolled areas with guns. 

[mclumber1]

9 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

When was the last mass shooting by a “black lives matters” activist? 

 

 

Fucking racist ass bullshit. 

 

If those activists did start getting militant we’d start seeing Republican gun control bills, just like when the Black Panthers rose up and patrolled areas with guns. 

 

There was that guy who killed 5 cops in Dallas a few years ago.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

6 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

There was that guy who killed 5 cops in Dallas a few years ago.

 And if that’s the most recent it proves the point; they’re not more dangerous than people of another ideology that commit shootings several times per year  

[SimpleG]

7 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

There was that guy who killed 5 cops in Dallas a few years ago.

Ya I cant find anything that connects him to BLM. Source?

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

 And if that’s the most recent it proves the point; they’re not more dangerous than people of another ideology that commit shootings several times per year  

 

Side thought: 

 

If we want to use the bullshit metric of 250 mass shootings this year alone, black people are likely the largest contributor to that statistic.  A vast majority of those 250 shootings are happening in ethnic neighborhoods.  They aren't carrying out these shootings for the same reasons as true mass shootings (like El Paso and Dayton), and aren't racially motivated, though.

[mclumber1]

5 minutes ago, SimpleG said:

Ya I cant find anything that connects him to BLM. Source?

 

Does he (or anyone) need to be connected to that specific group to count his rampage as racially motivated?

 

We don't have to connect the El Paso's shooter's rampage to any specific white nationalist group to see that he did it in the name of white nationalism. 

[SimpleG]

24 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Does he (or anyone) need to be connected to that specific group to count his rampage as racially motivated?

It does if your gonna attribute that group to hate crime.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, thewhyteboar said:

Just great work here.

 

I was JUST coming to post this.

[skillzdadirecta]

37 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Side thought: 

 

If we want to use the bullshit metric of 250 mass shootings this year alone, black people are likely the largest contributor to that statistic.  A vast majority of those 250 shootings are happening in ethnic neighborhoods.  They aren't carrying out these shootings for the same reasons as true mass shootings (like El Paso and Dayton), and aren't racially motivated, though.

 

You got proof for that champ? You know the definition for a mass shooting is four or more victims in one incident, right? Most shootings in high crime black areas tend to be crime related or drug and gang related and are often one, two victims TOPS. Show me the statistic that says blacks are significant contributors to THIS particular statistic. I will accede to your facts if you can show your work.

 

35 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Does he (or anyone) need to be connected to that specific group to count his rampage as racially motivated?

 

We don't have to connect the El Paso's shooter's rampage to any specific white nationalist group to see that he did it in the name of white nationalism. 

 

White nationalism is an Ideology... BLM is a specific GROUP. Two different things bro-ham. It would be more accurate to say that the Dallas shooter had a hatred of COPS regardless of their skin color. The color he hated most was BLUE. My father who is black would have been a target of this guy just like every other cop out there.

[mclumber1]

3 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

You got proof for that champ? You know the definition for a mass shooting is four or more victims in one incident, right? Most shootings in high crime black areas tend to be crime related or drug and gang related and are often one, two victims TOPS. Show me the statistic that says blacks are significant contributors to THIS particular statistic. I will accede to your facts if you can show your work.

 

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

 

It's difficult to parse through this data, so my statement is conjecture at best.  

[TheGreatGamble]

6 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

You got proof for that champ? You know the definition for a mass shooting is four or more victims in one incident, right? Most shootings in high crime black areas tend to be crime related or drug and gang related and are often one, two victims TOPS. Show me the statistic that says blacks are significant contributors to THIS particular statistic. I will accede to your facts if you can show your work.

Ya, that seems like he’s blowing smoke out his ass. I have never seen stats that show that. 

 

Thought it was 3 or more tho.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

8 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Side thought: 

 

If we want to use the bullshit metric of 250 mass shootings this year alone, black people are likely the largest contributor to that statistic.  A vast majority of those 250 shootings are happening in ethnic neighborhoods.  They aren't carrying out these shootings for the same reasons as true mass shootings (like El Paso and Dayton), and aren't racially motivated, though.

No one will deny that black on black gun violence isn’t an issue. But if the FBI is branding them all as BLM activists they’re not  doing their job right. Gang violence and inner city beefs are not the same thing. 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

 

It's difficult to parse through this data, so my statement is conjecture at best.  

 

It's deliberately difficulty because of the efforts of the NRA and gun rights groups. They don't want this information out there so as I suspected, all anyone can do is guess.And just glancing at that tracker... a lot of this incidents don't seem to fit the definition of a mass shooter. Two people shot and no one dying I don't think is a mass shooting in the widely accepted definition of the term. THOSE tend to be the incidents that happen in high crime black areas. Either way, all of this gun violence has one root cause. The easy accessibility to guns. 

[skillzdadirecta]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Ya, that seems like he’s blowing smoke out his ass. I have never seen stats that show that. 

 

Thought it was 3 or more tho.

 

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

 

Quote

The characterization of an event as a mass shooting depends upon definition, and definitions vary. Under U.S. federal law the Attorney General, on a request from a state, may assist in investigating “mass killings,” rather than mass shootings. The term was originally defined as the murder of four or more people with no cooling-off period but redefined by Congress in 2013 as being murder of three or more people.[6] In “Behind the Bloodshed,” a report by USA Today, a mass killing is defined as any incident in which four or more were killed and also includes family killings] A crowdsourced data site cited by CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist, the BBC, etc., Mass Shooting Tracker, defines a mass shooting as any incident in which five or more people are shot, whether injured or killed. A noteworthy connection has been reported in the U.S. between mass shootings and domestic or family violence, with a current or former intimate partner or family member killed in 76 of 133 cases (57%), and a perpetrator having previously been charged with domestic violence in 21.The lack of a single definition can lead to alarmism in the news media, with some reports conflating categories of crimes.

However, according to the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, signed into law in January 2013, a mass killing is defined as a killing with at least three deaths, excluding the perpetrator. Another unofficial definition of a mass shooting is an event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of five or more people (sometimes four) with no cooling-off period.

In Australia, a 2006 paper defined a mass shooting as “one in which ⩾5 firearm‐related homicides are committed by one or two perpetrators in proximate events in a civilian setting, not counting any perpetrators.” Arguably this was done to not have to label the Monash University shooting as such.

Crime violence research group Gun Violence Archive, whose research is used by all major American media outlets, defines mass shooting as “FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter,” differentiating between mass shooting and mass murder [killing] and not counting shooters as victims.

An act is typically defined as terrorist if it “appears to have been intended” to intimidate or to coerce people;] a mass shooting is not, in itself, an act of terrorism. A U.S. Congressional Research Service report explicitly excluded from its definition of public mass shootings those in which the violence is a means to an end, for example where the gunmen “pursue criminal profit or kill in the name of terrorist ideologies.

 

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

It's deliberately difficulty because of the efforts of the NRA and gun rights groups. They don't want this information out there so as I suspected, all anyone can do is guess.And just glancing at that tracker... a lot of this incidents don't seem to fit the definition of a mass shooter. Two people shot and no one dying I don't think is a mass shooting in the widely accepted definition of the term. THOSE tend to be the incidents that happen in high crime black areas. Either way, all of this gun violence has one root cause. The easy accessibility to guns. 

 

I'm glad we agree that the en vogue method of calling something a "mass shooting" is bullshit.

 

 

[SimpleG]

6 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

It's deliberately difficulty because of the efforts of the NRA and gun rights groups. They don't want this information out there so as I suspected, all anyone can do is guess.And just glancing at that tracker... a lot of this incidents don't seem to fit the definition of a mass shooter. Two people shot and no one dying I don't think is a mass shooting in the widely accepted definition of the term. THOSE tend to be the incidents that happen in high crime black areas. Either way, all of this gun violence has one root cause. The easy accessibility to guns. 

Mass Shooting Tracker uses 4 as a baseline. So any combo of injured or killed at 4 or more is considered a mass shooting.

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, SimpleG said:

Mass Shooting Tracker uses 4 as a baseline. So any combo of injured or killed at 4 or more is considered a mass shooting.

 

Reading through the news stories, they count convenience store robberies the same as El Paso.

[SimpleG]

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Reading through the news stories, they count convenience store robberies the same as El Paso.

Yup, if a man kills himself ,his wife and 2 kids they consider it a mass shooting.

[SimpleG]

2 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Reading through the news stories, they count convenience store robberies the same as El Paso.

The number is really all that matters though.

[skillzdadirecta]

8 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I'm glad we agree that the en vogue method of calling something a "mass shooting" is bullshit.

 

 

 

I never said it was bullshit... I accept the general definition of four or more people being a mass shooting. Don't know why someone would be offended by the label, whatever it is. The problem is the easy access to guns regardless of however you define a mass shooting.

[mclumber1]

6 minutes ago, SimpleG said:

The number is really all that matters though.

 

Effective social and economic policy can be used to reduce these numbers.   If thousands of young men  are dying each year because of the illegal drug trade, maybe we need to do something about the war on drugs?  How many people were dying from the war on alcohol after prohibition was repealed?  A lot less than when there was a lucrative black market for alcohol.  

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Effective social and economic policy can be used to reduce these numbers.   If thousands of young men  are dying each year because of the illegal drug trade, maybe we need to do something about the war on drugs?  How many people were dying from the war on alcohol after prohibition was repealed?  A lot less than when there was a lucrative black market for alcohol.  

 

Don't disagree with that... but some of that "Effective social and economic policy" action you're talking about will HAVE to deal with the ease of access to guns. It will have to. Do you really not see that America has a gun problem? 

[mclumber1]

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Don't disagree with that... but some of that "Effective social and economic policy" action you're talking about will HAVE to deal with the ease of access to guns. It will have to. Do you really not see that America has a gun problem? 

 

We have a gun problem because we have socioeconomic problems.  We are a lot more like Latin America than we are Canada and Europe when it comes to issues like gang activity, poverty, and corruption.  

 

I'm not opposed to certain new gun control legislation, I just don't think it will be the cure-all that some politicians and pundits sell it as. 

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, mclumber1 said:

 

We have a gun problem because we have socioeconomic problems.  We are a lot more like Latin America than we are Canada and Europe when it comes to issues like gang activity, poverty, and corruption.  

 

I'm not opposed to certain new gun control legislation, I just don't think it will be the cure-all that some politicians and pundits sell it as. 

Who is saying it will be a cure all?! It's a significant part of the problem but folks on The Right are talking about EVERYTHING but guns. We have a lot of the same socio-economic problems as other western countries but they just don't have the gun violence. Historically when they HAVE had big incidents involving guns, they did something about it. Australia and Japan are the two I'm thinking of.

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Who is saying it will be a cure all?! It's a significant part of the problem but folks on The Right are talking about EVERYTHING but guns. We have a lot of the same socio-economic problems as other western countries but they just don't have the gun violence. Historically when they HAVE had big incidents involving guns, they did something about it. Australia and Japan are the two I'm thinking of.

 

Every mass shooter (by FBI definition) in recent memory has purchased their gun at a gun shop, undergoing a background check.  The left is currently pushing for universal background checks in response to these shootings,  even though UBCs wouldn't have prevented events like El Paso, Gilroy, or Dayton.  

 

Things like raising the taxes on firearms and ammunition will have no effect on whether someone like the El Paso shooter decides to shoot up a Walmart.  I doubt it would affect gang violence either, as they aren't out at the range every weekend honing their skills - It's reasonable to assume that the average gangland shooter has bought 1 box (50 rounds) of ammunition in their criminal lives before finally using their gun in a crime and killing someone.  I also don't see how an increased tax will stop suicides.  Do suicidal people care that a box of 9mm is now $20 instead of $10? They are just going to put it on their credit card anyways.

 

Japan has never had a gun violence problem, but they've also never had guns.  Australia's gun violence fell at the same rate as America's after they instituted a confiscation program and stricter controls, while America loosened their laws in regards to concealed carry and other laws. 

[skillzdadirecta]

5 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Every mass shooter (by FBI definition) in recent memory has purchased their gun at a gun shop, undergoing a background check.  The left is currently pushing for universal background checks in response to these shootings,  even though UBCs wouldn't have prevented events like El Paso, Gilroy, or Dayton.  

 

Things like raising the taxes on firearms and ammunition will have no effect on whether someone like the El Paso shooter decides to shoot up a Walmart.  I doubt it would affect gang violence either, as they aren't out at the range every weekend honing their skills - It's reasonable to assume that the average gangland shooter has bought 1 box (50 rounds) of ammunition in their criminal lives before finally using their gun in a crime and killing someone.  I also don't see how an increased tax will stop suicides.  Do suicidal people care that a box of 9mm is now $20 instead of $10? They are just going to put it on their credit card anyways.

 

Japan has never had a gun violence problem, but they've also never had guns.  Australia's gun violence fell at the same rate as America's after they instituted a confiscation program and stricter controls, while America loosened their laws in regards to concealed carry and other laws. 

 

Straw sales are a HUGE contributor to inner-city gun violence. There's nothing stopping someone from legally buying a gun in Pennsylvania and then selling that gun out of the trunk of their car to WHOEVER and facing no repercussions for it. If that gun ever shows up in a crime, all they have to do is say it was stolen. They don't even have to have made a report. There are a TON of loopholes like this in our gun laws. Also the lack of education regarding guns is a problem... most people don't know that two thirds of all gun violence are suicides or that suicidal folks WITH guns are more than likely to follow through on their suicidal thoughts successfully than those without. Or that houses with guns in them are statisticically more likely to experience an incident, accidental or otherwise, due to having that gun in the house.

 

For me, I've personally never advocated for abolishing gun rights or confiscation. All I've said is that guns should be treated the same way as cars, requiring a license, training, registration and maybe even insurance in order to won one. Americans have proven over and over again that we are not as a society, responsible enough to own guns without oversight.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

One of the things that frustrates me about the gun debate is this: 

 

if you eliminate 100% of poverty we will still have gun violence. 

If you eliminate 100% of video games, violent movies, violent tv, excitable music, and graphic print media we will still have gun violence. 

If you eliminate 100% of mental illness we will still have gun violence. 

If you eliminate 100% of illegal and addictive drugs we will still have gun violence. 

If you eliminate 100% of the emotions fear and hate we will still have gun violence. 

 

BUT

 

If you eliminate 100% of guns you will eliminate 100% of gun violence. 

 

Now I am not saying we can easily eliminate 100% of guns. But check my math. It adds up. 

 

While there have been different motivating factors across various instances of gun violence, the ONLY common factors are guns and people. 

 

While some one may argue for trying to eliminate 100% of people, I’d say we should work on the gun angle first.