Turn on thread page Beta

There is no double standard for white mass murderers watch

Announcements
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:


    (Original post by bammy jastard 27)
    You can kill 17 children with knives if nobody else has one and you're quick.

    Bruce Lee probably could kill 17 people with his fists.
    lold
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The PoliticalGuy)
    A lot of terrorists behind attacks have been identified as mentally ill but the media has failed to cover it as publicly as when white people commit atrocities such as this. Salem abedi - Manchester bomber ,A alcohol and cannabis addict who was described by one of his teachers as "not okay".Not covered by the media. Omar mahteen - Shooter of 49 people at nightclub declared mentally disturbed. Again not covered by the media. Another statistic over a third of all french radicals are mentally disturbed.

    However when a white person murders 17 people in cold blood the first thing you here on the news is his backstory of his horrible life and his mental illness.
    I'm not saying that this information isn't useful to why he done it or it shouldn't be mentioned but double standards in the media exist but not to the extent that some people claim
    So where did you hear about their mental illnesses? How did you find out if the media 'never covered it.'

    Due to the hot topic geopolitical nature of terrorism, it will naturally be the focus in a terrorist attack instead of the attacker's mental health history. When it's a run-of-the-mill mass shooting, there's not much else to be identified and talked about other than the attacker's mental health and personal background. That and gun control.

    If you believe there is still a double standard, by all means, present an analysis of the available data showing that there is, otherwise it's merely conjecture based on what you remember seeing in the news.

    I remember the mental health of the 2014 Ottawa shooter (a Muslim) was discussed, but that would also be a case of cherry picking.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Not also a terrorist but also a murderer. Wasn't he part of an extremist white supremacist organisation like the KKK? The kkk is a terrorist organisation too
    You cannot define the KKK as a terrorist group based on their current activity. They do not commit unlawful activity based on a political agenda... yes they may be white supremacists but their actions don’t explicitly fall under unlawful. The other thing to note here is that there to my own knowledge is no definitive proof that our attacker was a white supremacist; Jereb, the man who suggested Cruz was part of his group, has a history of doing things for attention and has said he was mistaken. Therefore it’s very unlikely there is a political agenda here ( all evidence suggests that Cruz had an unhealthy obsession with guns, and Law enforcement failed to take action on the reports of his threats). The crying out of non existent white privilege queen-bee is not furthering any discussion here
    Back to the question of the OP, I agree there is no double standard. Indeed, the social justice warriors of the Internet cry out suggesting a double standard every time there is violence of some sort, failing to even look at the context of the events. Evidence seems to suggest our attacked here did have mental health issues, given that he had received services for that previously.
    Conclusion: people before have stated there is a double standard to death, and really should drop their imaginary narrative
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by bammy jastard 27)
    People with knives, people with ropes, people with fists, people with 'insert any object here'

    I'm having fun on this and just thought I'd do that quote but I'm being semi genuine. If someone wants to kill somebody else taking away a gun isn't going to stop them from finding another way.
    Are you really contending that a knife is the same as a gun? They're a world apart - even the most dedicated killer would find it near impossible to kill many people with a knife before being stopped, whilst a tosser with an AK could happily kill dozens of people within a minute.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Are you really contending that a knife is the same as a gun? They're a world apart - even the most dedicated killer would find it near impossible to kill many people with a knife before being stopped, whilst a tosser with an AK could happily kill dozens of people within a minute.
    The whole point is that people will still kill people.

    Also there are probably other effective methods. What stops that same person from getting a van or car to run people over e.g.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bammy jastard 27)
    The whole point is that people will still kill people.

    Also there are probably other effective methods. What stops that same person from getting a van or car to run people over e.g.
    Well then let them try and kill 17 people with a knife. Gun control would certainly make it much more difficult.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Well then let them try and kill 17 people with a knife. Gun control would certainly make it much more difficult.
    You're focusing too much on the knife comment. Like I said, what stops said person from getting a car and doing the same thing?

    Or getting some bottles of Alcohol and a lighter and making molotovs?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bammy jastard 27)
    You're focusing too much on the knife comment. Like I said, what stops said person from getting a car and doing the same thing?
    Nothing stops them, but it makes it much more difficult. Gun control is a lot more effective than ‘thoughts and prayers’. When a child choked to death on a grape at Pizza Hut, what did they do? They removed grapes from the menu.

    Why is gun violence much more rare in the UK?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    You cannot define the KKK as a terrorist group based on their current activity. They do not commit unlawful activity based on a political agenda... yes they may be white supremacists but their actions don’t explicitly fall under unlawful. The other thing to note here is that there to my own knowledge is no definitive proof that our attacker was a white supremacist; Jereb, the man who suggested Cruz was part of his group, has a history of doing things for attention and has said he was mistaken. Therefore it’s very unlikely there is a political agenda here ( all evidence suggests that Cruz had an unhealthy obsession with guns, and Law enforcement failed to take action on the reports of his threats). The crying out of non existent white privilege queen-bee is not furthering any discussion here
    Back to the question of the OP, I agree there is no double standard. Indeed, the social justice warriors of the Internet cry out suggesting a double standard every time there is violence of some sort, failing to even look at the context of the events. Evidence seems to suggest our attacked here did have mental health issues, given that he had received services for that previously.
    Conclusion: people before have stated there is a double standard to death, and really should drop their imaginary narrative
    No,no,no!

    The KKK are a terrorist organisations and they do commit unlawful acts and threats toward civilians because of their anti-Black, anti-Catholic, anti-Communist, anti-Semitic, and white-supremacist agenda. Charlottesville attacks where KKK members killed black activists I can name many more unlawful activities, the truth is he was involved with a banned terrorist organisation whether this attack was to do with the KKK is still unclear.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Nothing stops them, but it makes it much more difficult. Gun control is a lot more effective than ‘thoughts and prayers’. When a child choked to death on a grape at Pizza Hut, what did they do? They removed grapes from the menu.

    Why is gun violence much more rare in the UK?
    Removing grapes from the menu is a drastic measure to one kid dying on a grape, you can choke on a pizza slice too, so are they going to ban pizza if one child were to choke to death on a pizza?

    Obviously access to guns are harder here. But in a society like the US where guns have been around for at least 200 years and there's a multibillion dollar trade do you think its as simple as banning guns and nobody will have them? Do you think the NRA are going to be happy about that? Do you think traders who are now going to be out of business won't just operate on the side to normal civilians?

    It'll probably just lead to an illegal trade of guns. It's ingrained in their society that they need a gun, until that changes (a single law banning won't do that) there are still going to be mass shootings.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bammy jastard 27)
    Removing grapes from the menu is a drastic measure to one kid dying on a grape, you can choke on a pizza slice too, so are they going to ban pizza if one child were to choke to death on a pizza?

    Obviously access to guns are harder here. But in a society like the US where guns have been around for at least 200 years and there's a multibillion dollar trade do you think its as simple as banning guns and nobody will have them? Do you think the NRA are going to be happy about that? Do you think traders who are now going to be out of business won't just operate on the side to normal civilians?

    It'll probably just lead to an illegal trade of guns. It's ingrained in their society that they need a gun, until that changes (a single law banning won't do that) there are still going to be mass shootings.
    How is it a drastic measure? Should they have waited for hundreds of kids to die before taking any action? And They haven’t banned grapes. Just as no one is proposing we ban guns. Parents have been advised on the ways they should cut grapes for their children to minimising the chance of choking. Just as gun control would minimise the chances of an angry teenager shooting up your child’s school.

    Gun control is not the same as Gun banning. You need to let go of this ‘it’s still going to happen’ mindset. Should we stop educating our children about safe sex because unplanned pregnancies and STDs are still going to happen?

    We also have a lot of mentally ill people here in the UK, they don’t all live in the USA. Only difference is that we don’t grant them easy access to guns. Far too often are innocent children killed by shootings because they get caught in drive bys while playing in their front garden. Far too often have young children found a gun in their house and used it to accidentally shoot and kill their older siblings. If not gun control, what else can be done?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    The definition of terrorism tells us that for something to be labelled as terrorism, the perpetrator must have a political aim. If NO political aim can be identified, it simply cannot be called terrorism.
    WHY CAN'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS ALREADY. Hahaha
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The PoliticalGuy)
    No,no,no!

    The KKK are a terrorist organisations and they do commit unlawful acts and threats toward civilians because of their anti-Black, anti-Catholic, anti-Communist, anti-Semitic, and white-supremacist agenda. Charlottesville attacks where KKK members killed black activists I can name many more unlawful activities, the truth is he was involved with a banned terrorist organisation whether this attack was to do with the KKK is still unclear.
    Yes... but have you provided evidence that he was indeed an affiliated part of a white supremacist group and the attack was motivated as such ( which really wouldn’t make sense here, nor would a political motivation. )
    I won’t deny the KKK have done awful things in its past, but here it is hardly related. With Charlottesville, one person died because of a vehicle attack is even dubious to whether it was intentional ( it appears Antifa goons chased the perpetrator before this happened, yes the guy was interested in white supremacy but it appears that his motive might not have been to kill intentionally). I don’t know off any other people who were killed in those attacks, but feel free to enlighten me there, since violence was conducted equally from the counter protesters.
    Back in topic, we can’t call this terrorism if it appears there’s no political motivation and we especially can’t do it whilst the perpetrator lives and is to stand trial. Once we have all the evidence then we can be sure whether it was terrorism or not ( just don’t jump the gun)
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by bammy jastard 27)
    Obviously access to guns are harder here. But in a society like the US where guns have been around for at least 200 years and there's a multibillion dollar trade do you think its as simple as banning guns and nobody will have them? Do you think the NRA are going to be happy about that? Do you think traders who are now going to be out of business won't just operate on the side to normal civilians?

    It'll probably just lead to an illegal trade of guns. It's ingrained in their society that they need a gun, until that changes (a single law banning won't do that) there are still going to be mass shootings.
    Obviously banning guns would be an incredibly drastic measure and would be near impossible to implement.
    However tougher gun controls is definitely possible something on the lines of

    All registered gun owners must report to the government and take a mental health test yearly or threat of their gun incense to be stripped.
    Make gun licenses harder to obtain in all states.
    All bumper stocks to be banned, silencers to be banned
    Handguns only allowed on public land.
    No more than 4 guns in possession of a family.
    Semi automatic rifles ban
    Stronger sentences for illegal guns

    This is tighter gun control and would greatly decrease the amount of guns in circulation in the United states thus decreasing gun crimes and mass shootings.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    So where did you hear about their mental illnesses? How did you find out if the media 'never covered it.'

    Due to the hot topic geopolitical nature of terrorism, it will naturally be the focus in a terrorist attack instead of the attacker's mental health history. When it's a run-of-the-mill mass shooting, there's not much else to be identified and talked about other than the attacker's mental health and personal background. That and gun control.

    If you believe there is still a double standard, by all means, present an analysis of the available data showing that there is, otherwise it's merely conjecture based on what you remember seeing in the news.

    I remember the mental health of the 2014 Ottawa shooter (a Muslim) was discussed, but that would also be a case of cherry picking.
    There's a difference between covering something and playing it up.

    When Dylan Roof shot dead 8 people in a Church in a race war, the right wing media refused to describe it as terrorism.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bammy jastard 27)
    Guns don't kill people, people do.
    Atomic bombs don't kill people, people do. Therefore everyone should have the right to an atomic bomb. Right?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    When a Muslim commits a mass murder, Trump and all his right-wing nuts are the first to start screaming about how this is proof that Muslims need to be banned and that we need to get "tougher" on them.

    When a White Christian commits a mass murder with a gun, Trump and all his right-wing nuts say fake prayers, tell us that "now is not the time to talk about gun control" and rebuke us for supposedly using a tragedy to score political points.

    Apparently guns are more important than people. Or they simply have no integrity and don't actually care about national security. In fact, they simply hate certain people and use national security as a smokescreen to implement legislation against them.

    And you say that there is no double standard? You say that with a straight face?
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Eunomia)
    When a Muslim commits a mass murder, Trump and all his right-wing nuts are the first to start screaming about how this is proof that Muslims need to be banned and that we need to get "tougher" on them.

    When a White Christian commits a mass murder with a gun, Trump and all his right-wing nuts say fake prayers, tell us that "now is not the time to talk about gun control" and rebuke us for supposedly using a tragedy to score political points.

    Apparently guns are more important than people. Or they simply have no integrity and don't actually care about national security. In fact, they simply hate certain people and use national security as a smokescreen to implement legislation against them.

    And you say that there is no double standard? You say that with a straight face?
    But that is grossly exaggerating the discussions that take place after an attack like this... the centrists and leftists bring up gun control in these situations to which liberals reply that there isn’t much evidence which suggests more restrictions on guns will have a massive difference of crime, you can’t even be sure whether it will have a positive impact. They wonder if there was things law enforcement could have done to stop it, and whether they could have stopped their extremist views from motivating their attack. ( and if it wasn’t politically motivated, how else they could have stopped it, like taking heed to prior reports submitted)
    When an Islamist attack occurs... right wingers don’t call for a Muslim ban, they call into question how law enforcement and counter terrorism units spend their time and how further action could prevent it. They call into question how background checks are carried out of immigrants who come from countries where they are statistically more likely to cause harm, and wonder how things domestically allow for radicalisation. ( once again, if they weren’t motivated by ideology, what steps could have done to stop it) Do you see the similarities there.
    There are always discussions on what to do following an attack and ensure both freedom and safety, I guarantee you that they don’t intend to discriminate against certain people groups or religion ( a very small minority of people do that) and they certainly don’t value guns above human life.
    So yes I can say there is no double standard with a straight face in terms of media coverage, and is simply people coming up with a narrative that convinces others there is a double standard
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    It seems each time a white person shoots up a bunch of people, we will hear the inevitable chorus of "If he was Muslim he would have been called a terrorist." We will also get people trying to call the shooter a terrorist, despite him not actually fitting the definition, seemingly in a half-witted attempt to make a statement.

    A person who commits an act of terror, or at least appears to have done so, will likely be called a terrorist by the media. A person with a history of mental illness who kills a bunch of people will likely be called mentally ill by the media. It's not rocket science. If it appears white mass killers are described as mentally ill more often, then perhaps it really is the case that they are. We don't know. Instead people will base their conclusions entirely on their subjective interpretations of what they happen to see on the news. This isn't reliable.

    Lastly, we have this notion come up that anyone who kills a bunch of people must be mentally ill anyway. To that I say perfectly healthy people are just as capable of doing evil things. Just look at human history.

    There is no proof at all that there is a double standard, and I am sick of hearing the unfounded notion that there is every single time.
    I think the title may be a little misleading; there are still cases of where there is a double standard. i.e. at the time Dylan Roof wasn't reported as terrorism neither was
    Charlottesville to just name a few.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamantacademic)
    Mentally ill people who commit mass murders can aren't terrorists. Oh please!
    And I'm pretty sure the 'Muslims' who carry out acts of terror are no less mentally stable, they're equally ducked up in the head
    Ahhh, back to school for you.
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.