Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2019/8/4/20752752/7-killed-46-wounded-chicago-shootings-lawndale-douglas-park-gun-violence

"A weekend of gun violence within city limits left at least seven people dead and 46 others wounded.

Shootings reached a peak Sunday morning, when 17 people were shot in three separate incidents in Lawndale over a span of two hours, forcing Mount Sinai Hospital to stop accepting new patients."

Surtur beware

dark vehicles, windows down, driving by

https://media.giphy.com/media/1Zbeweu52ZaQE/giphy.gif

glad you're okay Kal

Thanks, one of the shootings was like 7 blocks from me. But yeah I know which places to avoid.

Some neighborhoods here you enter them and it feels like you just entered a demilitarized zone.

I knew it. I was gonna ask you if it was in your neighbourhood.

So spill what's the word on the street.

This thread is about the most common mas shootings going on the US.

Mass shootings only matter when it is a white-looking incel.

Originally posted by shiv
I knew it. I was gonna ask you if it was in your neighbourhood.

So spill what's the word on the street.

It was just gang bangers mostly lol.

There is legit a gang called "The Chicago Gaylords". That's gangsta.

The "Black Disciples" commit a lot of murders. They're in uptown and all throughout the southside too.

Originally posted by Surtur
It was just gang bangers mostly lol.

There is legit a gang called "The Chicago Gaylords". That's gangsta.

The "Black Disciples" commit a lot of murders. They're in uptown and all throughout the southside too.

I wish these young black men would see their value, understand their worth, and stop this senseless violence.

They should be hugging each other, building each other up, and exploring the limits of their knowledge and education. Instead, they use their brain power to do terrible things which only harms their communities and families. They keep themselves in perpetual poverty. If every single one of them decided to throw down their weapons and immediately embraced each other as brothers working to raise their families to a better place, they'd see their communities become better than most in less than 10 years. We know it's possible because Tulsa had Black Wall Street (had better schools, better healthcare, and better income than the white neighborhoods).

Democrats use violence to control the inner cities.

What an infested shithole

https://i.imgur.com/yrDDXkw.jpg

Awful

Thanks Surtur.

You'll be Okay.

I feel sorry for all caught up and involved in that life.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
What an infested shithole

Zomg, racist!

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
What an infested shithole

How dare you!

Notice I didn't take any offense to it...cuz ya know, reality and all.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I wish these young black men would see their value, understand their worth, and stop this senseless violence.

They should be hugging each other, building each other up, and exploring the limits of their knowledge and education. Instead, they use their brain power to do terrible things which only harms their communities and families. They keep themselves in perpetual poverty. If every single one of them decided to throw down their weapons and immediately embraced each other as brothers working to raise their families to a better place, they'd see their communities become better than most in less than 10 years. We know it's possible because Tulsa had Black Wall Street (had better schools, better healthcare, and better income than the white neighborhoods). As Ben Carson said, poverty is a state of mind.
I'd like to see more effective programs trying to accomplish what you stated.



Anyway, I'd like to hear Robtard's educated opinion on the matter.

My thoughts and my prayers.

Originally posted by Robtard
My thoughts and my prayers. That's not much of an opinion. Do you have any solutions that can be done by the local government?

But we need more. Somebody do something. Democrats run this city, I can't wait for their ideas. I'm glad they've focused on this and not using tax payer money for abortions or shielding illegals.

I guess I'm curious, do people feel what happened in Chicago over the weekend deserves as much coverage as mass shootings?

You see...if you only care about mass shootings done by white supremacists and only focus on those, you do not care about gun violence. You care about white supremacy. Which is fine, but it is not the same as caring about gun violence.

If you target guns like AK-47s and ignore the many many more deaths by handguns and advocate for weapon bans that have been proven not to work...you also do not care about gun violence. I can point out mass shootings with higher body counts than el paso where only handguns were used. The one in Virginia from 4-5 years ago is one. You will not be able to stop these kinds of tragedies by getting rid of guns like AK-47s, etc.

Originally posted by Surtur
Thanks, one of the shootings was like 7 blocks from me. But yeah I know which places to avoid.

Some neighborhoods here you enter them and it feels like you just entered a demilitarized zone. Move to Malmo, or Luton mate. They are fine.

Originally posted by Surtur
I guess I'm curious, do people feel what happened in Chicago over the weekend deserves as much coverage as mass shootings?

You see...if you only care about mass shootings done by white supremacists and only focus on those, you do not care about gun violence. You care about white supremacy. Which is fine, but it is not the same as caring about gun violence.

If you target guns like AK-47s and ignore the many many more deaths by handguns and advocate for weapon bans that have been proven not to work...you also do not care about gun violence. I can point out mass shootings with higher body counts than el paso where only handguns were used. The one in Virginia from 4-5 years ago is one. You will not be able to stop these kinds of tragedies by getting rid of guns like AK-47s, etc.

Are you trying to argue that white supremacist shootings have been given more media coverage than non white supremacist shootings?

Pretty sure that's not the case.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Are you trying to argue that white supremacist shootings have been given more media coverage than non white supremacist shootings?

Pretty sure that's not the case.

I'm arguing mass shootings get more coverage than 7 dead and 40 shot in a city over the span of a few days, in what is not an atypical weekend. I'm arguing if you focus less on that and more on mass shootings(which yes are more rare) you don't truly care about gun violence.

I'm also claiming yes, a mass shooting by a white supremacist will get more coverage. We're seeing el paso talked about more than Dayton. And we're seeing the media leave out details about the Dayton killer(like his political leanings). Not *all* in the media are doing that, but some are.

Pretty sure Columbine, Sandyhook, Parkland, Orlando, Las Vegas, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, San Bernardino and Aurora all got much more coverage.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Pretty sure Columbine, Sandyhook, Parkland, Orlando, Las Vegas, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, San Bernardino and Aurora all got much more coverage.

If you wanna believe the media doesn't pounce more on mass shootings by whites, okay.

Weird though, now you can comment on our media? Lol. But not before, for my other question in the other thread? That shit is so strange. You bent over backwards before to avoid making a comment.

All those shootings were wall to wall coverage on the BBC/Sky News for a considerable length of time over here. Neither of the latest ones were even top story for more than a day.

If you want me to address claims of bias I can only go with the similar accusations levied at our media broadcasters. The BBC gets accused of bias from all sides here. Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch so is our equivalent of Fox News. The popular political radio station LBC also gets accused of bias yet has commentators/hosts that range from Nigel Farage to James O'Brian

Right I'm sure, solid excuse

Oh and the BBC is bias lol. That is not up for debate.

Against who?

BBC leans left, how do you not know that?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Against who?

Don't ask stupid shit, especially if you're in the UK you should know.

They are supposed to be neutral. Why was a baby trump balloon brought into their studios?

Feel free to excuse it if you need to go that route. They'd bring the baby Sadiq Khan blimp into their studios too I'm sure.

So your argument is a balloon?

Not that it's chief political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg has been found guilty of breaking the BBCs impartiality guidelines or that it's main political interviewer, Andrew Neil has been editor of numerous right wing publications and is a member of the conservative party or that it's former chief political correspondent Nick Robinson is a member of the conservative party or that Nigel Farage has appeared on the main political panel show Question Time more than anyone else despite never having been elected to the UK parliament despite running 7 times for election?

A balloon though.

It's just an example off the top of my head, but I'd love for you to explain why it's not valid.

They did, after all, also bring in the Sadiq Khan baby balloon?

And even if the Sadiq balloon never existed, I'd love an explanation as to how bringing in the Trump balloon is neutral. Gimme!

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Pretty sure Columbine, Sandyhook, Parkland, Orlando, Las Vegas, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, San Bernardino and Aurora all got much more coverage.

You're correct.

The "media only cares when it's a White Supremacist" angle is just nonsense from the usual suspects.

Nah, you tried tho.

*sings* Ohh not bias, not bias.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/3/sarah-jeong-story-by-bbc-edited-racist-descriptor-/

They also got diversity quotas. Shall someone defend it?

Originally posted by Robtard
You're correct.

The "media only cares when it's a White Supremacist" angle is just nonsense from the usual suspects.


Showing more white crime compared to black crime in a certain area, even if statistics skew the other direction, is an example of the media taking a biased stance.


This is what Cops director admitted to doing in an interview.


An example of CNN skewing narratives, is placing emphasis on the "white" aspect of a white hispanic in a certain Stand Your Ground case.



My point, is CNN isn't the network to downplay white crime as anything less then a cultural illness specific to white people, which would never happen if a shooter is, say, Muslim. (But you can count on Fox to hammer home how bad Muslims are.)

Originally posted by cdtm
Showing more white crime compared to black crime in a certain area, even if statistics skew the other direction, is an example of the media taking a biased stance.


This is what Cops director admitted to doing in an interview.


An example of CNN skewing narratives, is placing emphasis on the "white" aspect of a white hispanic in a certain Stand Your Ground case.



My point, is CNN isn't the network to downplay white crime as anything less then a cultural illness specific to white people, which would never happen if a shooter is, say, Muslim. (But you can count on Fox to hammer home how bad Muslims are.)

You racist motherf*cker. We don't take kindly to facts round these here parts.

Your next post best be nothing but pure emotion or we gonna have beef.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's just an example off the top of my head, but I'd love for you to explain why it's not valid.

They did, after all, also bring in the Sadiq Khan baby balloon?

And even if the Sadiq balloon never existed, I'd love an explanation as to how bringing in the Trump balloon is neutral. Gimme!

You're claiming bias over a balloon on a morning chat show yet ignoring the reality of their chief political correspondents.

The same accusations got made when Andrew Neil made a fool of Ben Shapiro causing him to walk out of an interview. They also got accused of right wing bias when Jeremy Paxman caused George Galloway to walk out of an interview

The Daily Mail accuses the BBC of left wing bias and The Independent accuses them of right wing bias. The Labour Party and SNP accuses them of right wing bias and promoting Pro Brexit agendas and the Brexit Party accuses them of left wing bias and a remainer agenda.

When you Google "BBC bias" you literally get opposing accusations next to each other in the search results.

You're dumb as f*ck if you think they're bias against the left. Just pointing that out.

Yet you can't counter any of those points.

What points? Some morons said they are bias against the right.

It's like when dipshits point to the rare time twitter bans a leftist to say "herp derp they ain't bias against conservatives".

Why do you fall for it? Is it the rights influence making these f*cks create diversity quotas? And stealth edit articles?

Show me a stealth edited article edited in order to help the right.

In fact show me them openly pandering to the right, like they do with the left. No I do not mean "some other media outlets said it". Just use the BBC's actual behavior.

The ben shapiro interview being an example of bias is retarded. It was neutral, the guy wasn't even leftist lol. Ben was wrong and admitted it.

Did the BBC cop their shit for the balloon? For stealth editing to make lefties look good? For bullshit diversity quotas?

This hill? Its shit to die on. It is not worth it.

Originally posted by Surtur
You're dumb as f*ck if you think they're bias against the left. Just pointing that out.

Raging at Jaden won't change the facts he's dropping. Even your very own "allsides.com" rates The BBC as "center":

https://i.imgur.com/RdLajs1.png

Link

Ah but your mediafactcheck rates them as left center.

Kid, choose


This is gonna be fun.

Originally posted by Robtard
Raging at Jaden won't change the facts he's dropping. Even your very own "allsides.com" rates The BBC as "center":

https://i.imgur.com/RdLajs1.png

Link

That's true but like all places, not all are the same as an example Shep Smith isn't the same as Hannity on Fox regardless of what sources want to appeal to.

Medbiasbiasfactcheck: BBC has a slight to moderate liberal bias.

Giggle. This is the site Rob used to love to use. I wonder if dude still loves it.

And btw: he has used it far far more often than I used the "allsides" site. There is gonna be no excuse for ignoring it.

In fact I think I linked to the "allsides" place only once.

Originally posted by Surtur
Ah but your mediafactcheck rates them as left center.

Kid, choose


This is gonna be fun.


MFC has them slightly to the Left of center:

https://i.imgur.com/GezhQWh.png

I'm fine with that, but look at you rage when your own sources are used against you.

Originally posted by Robtard
MFC has them slightly to the Left of center:

https://i.imgur.com/GezhQWh.png

I'm fine with that, but look at you rage when your own sources are used against you.

Slight to moderate liberal bias, kid.

And my own sources? I used the "all sides" once. Prove me wrong kiddo. Show me I used it more than you used the site that contradicts "all sides". Go for it.

^ Hates it when his own sources are used against him. Too funny.

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Hates it when his own sources are used against him. Too funny.

I don't hate it, I'm merely pointing out I brought up that place once.

You, on the other hand, brought up a place that directly contradicts it multiple times.

So hey, decide now: which site is more credible?

Both MBFC and AS basically agree; as they're not that far off from each other. The BBC is largely center, with some Left leaning.

In short: reality wins and you lose (again)

Originally posted by Robtard
Both MBFC and AS basically agree; as they're not that far off from each other. The BBC is largely center, with some Left leaning.

In short: reality wins and you lose (again)

They don't basically agree, since one place says they have a "slight to moderate liberal bias" and the other doesn't.

Lol, which do you choose?

What I'm hoping? Is you show cowardice and refuse to make a choice in your next reply.

Look at the graphs, sport, they're not too far off from each other. But hey, you're trying very hard right now, so have at it I guess. I'll be here in reality.

Let's just take a moment and realize that I was right when I said they lean left.

Originally posted by Robtard
Look at the graphs, sport, they're not too far off from each other. But hey, you're trying very hard right now, so have at it I guess. I'll be here in reality.

Dude, one site claims center and the other says there is a bias.

Which do you think is more correct? This should not be hard for you to answer.

And yet they're not that far off from each other, maybe a 6-7% difference. You're making it seem like one says Center than the other says Extreme Left. Being slightly to the Left isn't that far from Center. Neither is being slightly to the Right.

But sure, don't believe the graphs and your lying eyes.

Originally posted by Robtard
And yet they're not that far off from each other, maybe a 6-7% difference. You're making it seem like one says Center than the other says Extreme Left. Being slightly to the Left isn't that far from Center. Neither is being slightly to the Right.

But sure, don't believe the graphs and your lying eyes.

Pick. A. Site.

Repeat: Either one will work, as they're both not far from each other.

Average of the two: BBC is very, very slightly Left of Center.

Originally posted by Surtur
In fact show me them openly pandering to the right, like they do with the left. No I do not mean "some other media outlets said it". Just use the BBC's actual behavior.

The ben shapiro interview being an example of bias is retarded. It was neutral, the guy wasn't even leftist lol. Ben was wrong and admitted it.

Did the BBC cop their shit for the balloon? For stealth editing to make lefties look good? For bullshit diversity quotas?

This hill? Its shit to die on. It is not worth it.

I literally gave you an example of them pandering to the right with Nigel Farage being given far more screen time than his equivalent on the left.

Here's the stats

Nigel Farage no of times elected to a UK parliament 0
Highest number of MPs elected from his party 1
Number of appearances on its prime political debate show Question Time 33

Caroline Lucas of the green Party no of times elected to a UK parliament. 3
Highest number of MPs elected from her party 1
Number of appearances on Question Time. 11

Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP. No of times elected to a UK parliament 5
Highest number of MPs elected from her party. 55
Number of appearances on Question Time. 8

Its already been shown that they lean left.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I literally gave you an example of them pandering to the right with Nigel Farage being given far more screen time than his equivalent on the left.

Here's the stats

Nigel Farage no of times elected to a UK parliament 0
Highest number of MPs elected from his party 1
Number of appearances on its prime political debate show Question Time 33

Caroline Lucas of the green Party no of times elected to a UK parliament. 3
Highest number of MPs elected from her party 1
Number of appearances on Question Time. 11

Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP. No of times elected to a UK parliament 5
Highest number of MPs elected from her party. 55
Number of appearances on Question Time. 8

^ And then there's this Surt, actual data.

He's more popular. Not an example of bias.

Are you shitting me? You legit think they are bias for the right?

Jesus dude, Jaden 2.0 is waaay different from the previous Jaden. What happened?

You came back changed. This some gay british pet sematary type shit?

Originally posted by Surtur
He's more popular. Not an example of bias.

Are you shitting me? You legit think they are bias for the right?

Jesus dude, Jaden 2.0 is waaay different from the previous Jaden. What happened?

If he's more popular why has he never been elected to the UK parliament and failed 7 times to do so?

Yet he's popular, not cuz of election wins bro.

Come on, you trolling now?

You asked for an example of the BBC pandering to the Right; it was given. You're not accepting it because it sodomizes you right between bias buttcheeks won't change the fact it happened.

So he's popular. Just not enough to get elected.

I'd say he's the TV equivalent of clickbait.

Originally posted by Robtard
You asked for an example of the BBC pandering to the Right; it was given. You're not accepting it because it sodomizes you right between bias buttcheeks won't change the fact it happened.

Did you choose a site yet, kid?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So he's popular. Just not enough to get elected.

I'd say he's the TV equivalent of clickbait.

Perhaps, someone who can't get elected but can get yuge ratings.

https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5428081/bbc-news-coverage-biased-against-brexit/

Perfect example of opposing accusations of bias.

Originally posted by Surtur
Oh and the BBC is bias lol. That is not up for debate.


The BBC's major bias is against the poor/working class. They're elitist scum IMO.

It doesn't surprise me that jaden is sitting there and pretending like the BBC isn't extremely biased against people on the right. The BBC is basically the british version of CNN lol. No reasonable person takes the BBC seriously.

Originally posted by Surtur
Medbiasbiasfactcheck: BBC has a slight to moderate liberal bias.

Giggle. This is the site Rob used to love to use. I wonder if dude still loves it.

And btw: he has used it far far more often than I used the "allsides" site. There is gonna be no excuse for ignoring it.

In fact I think I linked to the "allsides" place only once.


LOL@ "slight to moderarte bias" . If that is true then FOX is only "slight to moderate bias" as well.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
It doesn't surprise me that jaden is sitting there and pretending like the BBC isn't extremely biased against people on the right. The BBC is basically the british version of CNN lol. No reasonable person takes the BBC seriously.

Why? I hope you've got more than a balloon on a morning chat show as evidence. A list of proven left wing political correspondents with membership of left wing parties, for example.

Are you saying that https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/ is wrong?

I'd be curious to know if that same site also rated CNN and MSNBC as being only "slightly/moderately" left-leaning biased lol. If they do, then you know the site is full of shit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I wish these young black men would see their value, understand their worth, and stop this senseless violence.

They should be hugging each other, building each other up, and exploring the limits of their knowledge and education. Instead, they use their brain power to do terrible things which only harms their communities and families. They keep themselves in perpetual poverty. If every single one of them decided to throw down their weapons and immediately embraced each other as brothers working to raise their families to a better place, they'd see their communities become better than most in less than 10 years. We know it's possible because Tulsa had Black Wall Street (had better schools, better healthcare, and better income than the white neighborhoods). From your lips to God's ears.

For 30 years I worked with (New York) inner-city high-school students and their families (mostly black). And a good number of these fine young men and women want to do exactly that. But it's tough trying to do this in non-supportive environments, neighborhoods that don't embrace the education ethic. And violence is the quickest means to empowerment, however iffy and temporary it may be. Those who uplift themselves through learning are real success stories.

^This post wasn't made in good faith, don't take the bait Squall this is what Adam does.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
What an infested shithole

Yes, North Lawndale is a shithole. Despite its name, it is actually on the far-West side.

I live on the Northside, and this shit rarely happens here. Like any city, it is different from neighborhood to neighborhood.

Originally posted by Surtur
I guess I'm curious, do people feel what happened in Chicago over the weekend deserves as much coverage as mass shootings?

You see...if you only care about mass shootings done by white supremacists and only focus on those, you do not care about gun violence. You care about white supremacy. Which is fine, but it is not the same as caring about gun violence.

If you target guns like AK-47s and ignore the many many more deaths by handguns and advocate for weapon bans that have been proven not to work...you also do not care about gun violence. I can point out mass shootings with higher body counts than el paso where only handguns were used. The one in Virginia from 4-5 years ago is one. You will not be able to stop these kinds of tragedies by getting rid of guns like AK-47s, etc.

This is an argument for a federal gun control policy.