not true , that is what they media would have you believe.

but Mass shooting/killing is not limited by race or gender.

This. Most but not all of the huge mass shootings are done by white guys, at least the typical "school shooter" type ones. There are several definitions of "mass shooting", but the one typically used is four or more people shot. There are plenty of those in the inner cities all the time, and most of them never make it beyond the local news. Ands even the huge mass shootings have been breaking the "white guy" mold lately. People don't even have to die for it to be considered a mass shooting.

Because they're not done by the proper color to make the news.

Mass shootings in the las 35-40 years runs about 2/3rds white from sites I've seen. Mass shooting is defined as 4 or more.

the second biggest in recent history was the Pulse night club shooting in Orlando , Arab Iraqi did that.

number dead has more to do with level of training than color.

number not dead has everything to do with trained people there to stop it .

for years I had been saying as bad as the numbers are , they are nothing compared to what a well trained person could put up. unfortunately the US Government trained up some folks that then went on to prove my point.


no list , no security clearance , no history , no race , no religion , no gender , predicts who shoots anymore.

My understanding was that that guy killed approximately 1 person for every minute he was holed up. He did it with a sig mpx, but at that rate, he may have well used a musket.

the numbers are constantly played with. if you use the numbers the news agencies like to of 2 or more injured or dead which then brings in lots of gang shootings the number of shootings skyrocket and the race flips to non white.

so it depends what numbers game who wants to play what day .

if you only want to count 2018 and 4 or more victims it is 12 shootings and nearly 50% white vs non white

being that the US was 76% white in 2018 an even distribution would be 76% of shooters to be white

how would you like the numbers bent today , what would you like to prove or disprove?

That's why a gave the parameters to the numbers I stated.

I understand , my point was however that that 76% of people in the US in 2018 were white if you use 40 years of numbers in 1977 the US was 87% white

After some time for deliberation, I believe that we may be hitting coonman too hard. Yes, it is a challenge to decipher his fat fingered Android phone communication skills, but I believe that we may be misinterpreting his words as racist, instead of as profiling. There is a big difference between the two words.
If we were all brutally honest, we would have to confess that we all "profile" every day. Profiling is nothing more than constantly observing your surroundings for the purpose of risk assessment. Not just limited to one's skin color, but from one's actions, mannerisms, etc.
The Reverend Jesse Jackson once stated that if he was walking down a city sidewalk at night, and encountered a black man walking in his direction on the same side of the street, that he would very likely cross the street to avoid contact with that black man just in case. Is that racist? No. That is profiling. He made a risk assessment based on the frequency of black on black crime in that city.
As far as coonman's risk assessment of the black guy carrying open, I doubt that coonman had anything to worry about. That black man was likely carrying open to thwart potential black on black crime upon himself.

You always seem dumbfounded as to why most people on here don't care for you. Posts like this is why. You're also always whining about being broke. Where I live, I can carry a weapon in the open with no restrictions FOR FREE. Up until recently, I'd have had to pay a permit fee to carry it concealed. And even now, would still need to pay to buy a holster to carry concealed..

Because I don't have to register with the state, thereby negating any constitutional rights, to do so.

If concealed and open carry were both completely legal with no restrictions, only a moron would open carry. But in many states, like mine, the only way to carry unrestricted without permits is open carry.

During trapping season I've got a pistol on me daily, and I use it a lot so it's almost always open carry. I've met more than my share of ignorant people like you that try to tell me I can't carry it. For the most part people just go on their way. I've had a couple disgruntled little old ladies tell me that what I'm doing is illegal. I prefer to carry concealed so I don't have to deal with people like you, but it's much easier when it's out every stop to carry it in the wide open.

This. I just can't bring myself to pay $300 dollars or more, and begging the crown for the "privilege" of tucking a gun behind my shirt instead of on top of my shirt.

Like I said to Danny:



Our County Sheriff doesn't like it either and makes it as easy as possible for citizens to get or renew their "Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms", our version of a CCW permit. He does that buy sending deputies to different locations throughout the County on the third Thursday of every month so folks don't have to travel into our cesspool of a County Seat, a corrupt, crime-ridden, drug-infested little city.

The fee is $20.00, it's honored in thirty-two states and the permit is good for five years. So it's really not a financial burden or inconvenience to obtain it. I think it is well worth it when the ramifications of being forced to shoot someone with an "illegal handgun" are considered.

It's a tool so use it as you need to and how it works the best for you! I care less what others think if it's legal then who is to say others are wrong if they choose different ways.

No downside to be well armed but concealed is better than overt.