~300 mass shootings in 2015, 220+ have unknown shooters!

[HereSince1628]

Don't believe me, do you? Well here's a link count them up yourself: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

What the hell can you really say about their 'profiles' when about 70% of the perps aren't known?

The first mass shooting in 2015 was on New Year's Day. The shooter is unknown, he shot people while on a New Year's Party bus in Memphis. Mentally Ill? White? Lone Wolf? Who can say? He seemed attracted to a party bus. BUT, he's unknown.

The unknown list is very long, it includes a number of drive-by shootings. And because those shooters are unknown we can't say much about them, except that drive-by shootings and shootings in community college classrooms seem different, at minimum in venue, and likely by different, albeit unknown, motivations.

The one thing we can say is that when it comes to KNOWING about mass shooters, what we know isn't even close to the whole story. It's no where near what we need to know to start painting stereotypes about mass shooters.

So in the face of such ignorance. Wouldn't it make sense to stop with the facile stereotypes about the shooters?

And lets not leap to popular bigotry that this is ALWAYS done by persons with mental disorders rather than a person enraged by an insult which is to say criminally violent bad behavior.

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

1. A fair amount is over turf wars/drug sales. [nt]

[HereSince1628]

2. Maybe, But doesn't that damage the prevailing white lone wolf crazy male stereotype?

drug sales generally speaks of GANGS, gangs are groups of people,not lone wolves.

And gangs aren't killing because their members are crazy. Gangs are killing as part of territorial behavior, and even when criminalized, territorial behavior is a basic and innate part of human behavior. More over terrirtoriality isn't dysfunctional. It's profitable. That dents the mental illness rationale

[Gregorian]

3. Well we know they aren't balanced people. I think that's a fair assumption

I have used the "mental" word before, and I think a more appropriate one is "unbalanced". I haven't met many balanced people in my life. And things are getting worse all of the time, even if most people don't do this kind of thing. Diets, parenting, capitalism, availability of guns. Guns are an unfair weapon, which is a discussion on its own.

[HereSince1628]

4. DIsagree, on balance, we really know nothing about their balance.

Most of them balance well enough that they can walk without falling down.

Which is to say, most of them aren't dysfunctional enough in their life contexts, be they legitimate, criminal or just curiously deviant, to end up instititionalized in one way or another, thus preventing their killing spree

[Gregorian]

5. Jimmy Carter: balanced. George Bush: unbalanced.

I think it's pretty clear in the extreme cases, which is really what we're talking about here. Only extreme ends in bullets.