[AtomicClucker]

Well, I think the thread topic should stay on topic... and that being TB decided somehow in his usually "I hate social media" self that launching another Reddit is a good idea.

Like last time it should go down in flames if previous patterns have proved correct.

As for the matter of games media?

Well, tl;dr the exact details are as follows - The Verge publishes a bait piece about how E3 should somehow feel bad about games with guns, then a bunch of idiots - from McIntosh, to Bob Chipman, jumped on Twitter to echo how E3 somehow was promoting 'something' because the Orlando shootings just happened. Everyone was in due haste to blame SOMETHING, rather than let the facts come to light and a picture form.

I jumped the gun and accused the media of fomenting the ghost of Jack Thompson - the matter is more muddled - pundits are fishing for something to blame, and quite frankly, many are being called out or have outright deleted tweets or blog posts as we speak.

Is it right to merely call it "games media" no, rather people are jumping to assumptions, and after my own callous claims looked at the build up of events. But once again, thank the Verge for throwing **** together to cash in on tragedy.

[Luis Dias]

And if a video game site were to do this, how long do you think it would take for people to complain that they're not talking about games? There are places where that sort of call to action is better placed.

Totally agree. There are better places to discuss the Orlando shooting. But, you see, that won't get these sites the clicks. The clicks, man.

The fact that there have been plenty of mass shootings in the US by non-Muslims does rather undermine your argument that Islam is the only real factor behind this one, as does the fact that Islamic terror attacks in Europe have required much greater organisation and support than one guy heading to the gun shop.

You're saying that because other people did things for other reasons, that should mean this guy totally didn't have his religious dogma telling him he should hate himself and every other gay people and, say, kill them?

How much more of obviousnessness do you require as a criteria before saying that X is a culprit of a certain event?

If your position is rather that in the US, americans have to deal with a lot more of this that does not imply religion, or at least islam, and that therefore a search for an underlying platform they could try to solve is warranted, then that makes a whole more sense.

But I have addressed this. The availability of the gun issue is a shady angle to tackle. Unless you're going to say that everyone who the government deems "dangerous" can't buy guns (and that may well mean whomever they want, for whatever they are saying, thus undermining both the first and the second amendments), then this position, no matter how philosophically sound, it's pragmatically worthless.

[666maslo666]

The fact that there have been plenty of mass shootings in the US by non-Muslims does rather undermine your argument that Islam is the only real factor behind this one

It is not the only real factor, but it is an important one. Certainly much, much more so than violent video games ever could be.

Muslims make up 1% of US population. They ought to commit 1% of all mass shootings. Well, they commit far more than that. So it is a very important factor indeed. Numbers dont lie.

http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html

[The E]

Muslims make up 1% of US population. They ought to commit 1% of all mass shootings. Well, they commit far more than that. So it is a very important factor indeed. Numbers dont lie.

http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html

Numbers do indeed not lie.

There have been 133 mass shootings in the US in 2016 so far. According to your list, one of them was clearly connected to islamic terrorism. That, according to my math, makes up 0.75% of the total.

[Luis Dias]

According to his list, ten were. And they signify the majority of casualties of mass shootings.

[AtomicClucker]

Well, I'm going to recommend that a mod excise the current discussion from the thread's original purpose - frankly it's futile to discuss the shootings in this thread.

[666maslo666]

Numbers do indeed not lie.

There have been 133 mass shootings in the US in 2016 so far. According to your list, one of them was clearly connected to islamic terrorism. That, according to my math, makes up 0.75% of the total.

I call BS. Please post source.

Maybe if you include all shootings, even those related to ordinary criminal activity (robberies, drug violence..), then you can get 133 shootings in 2016 alone. But that is not very relevant either to terrorism or the phenomenon of mass shootings which is characterized by an especially senseless violence. Nobody bats an eye when the shooting motive is as "mundane" as lets say, a gang war or a robbery gone wrong..

EDIT: brain fart..

[Ghostavo]

He is correct. Here's a link with some statistics.

Also the definition of mass shooting used.

FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location not including the shooter.

[666maslo666]

He is correct. Here's a link with some statistics.

Also the definition of mass shooting used.

FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location not including the shooter.

Its just as I thought. This includes all shootings, most of them those committed because of "ordinary" criminal activity. And it also includes incidents where no people were even killed, 4 people being injured is enough to qualify! Its just not very relevant for our discussion.

EDIT: brain fart..

[The E]

According to his list, ten were. And they signify the majority of casualties of mass shootings.

No, his list only shows one shooting in 2016.

This is actually trickier to evaluate than I thought. Depending on what you count as a mass shooting, you arrive at a count of over 500 (according to this dataset, which counts incidents where noone was killed and which only goes back to November 2014), or a count of just about 50 (according to this one, which only counts "significant" shootings with multiple people killed and wounded). Now, we should be fair and use the "only significant" dataset, which excludes the 2002, 2006, 2009 Little Rock, 2013 and 2014 incidents from maslo's list due to the low number of people killed or wounded. That leaves a common set of 4 incidents, which means that according to that statistic, muslims were responsible for 8% of mass shootings.

But wait! That is actually not correct, is it? After all, that list maslo posted definitely does count "minor" incidents. Unfortunately, I was not able to find a breakdown that went back to 2002, but bear in mind that the list I did find listed over 500 incidents in the past 2.5 years. Measured against that, the 5 incidents on maslo's list that fall in that timeframe really do not show a significant percentage of islamist terrorism, I think.

[Phantom Hoover]

What the **** is even the point of this rathole, Islamist violence is something that must be opposed regardless of the percentage of some arbitrary mass shooting tracker it constitutes, and gun violence is a blight on American society independent of which factions are holding the guns, and of course this has nothing to do with TotalBiscuit's subreddit but I suppose this thread was destined to be a drama release valve from the start.

[The E]

What the **** is even the point of this rathole, Islamist violence is something that must be opposed regardless of the percentage of some arbitrary mass shooting tracker it constitutes, and gun violence is a blight on American society independent of which factions are holding the guns, and of course this has nothing to do with TotalBiscuit's subreddit but I suppose this thread was destined to be a drama release valve from the start.

This is, of course, true.

[666maslo666]

Measured against that, the 5 incidents on maslo's list that fall in that timeframe really do not show a significant percentage of islamist terrorism, I think.

It is indeed tricky. If you count shootings quite liberally, then you will begin to count ordinary criminal activity, too. And at that point the number of shootings explodes and drowns out all terrorist activity, islamic or other, or any other shootings with "unconventional" motivations. But if you count shootings that are in some way different from ordinary criminal activity (such as terrorism, radicals, crazy people, many dead victims, etc.), then I am sure statistics will show islamic shootings are very overrepresented.

[Det. Bullock]

Effectively the thing got a bit out of hand, probably I should put my fingers in a blender before criticizing TB's approach to reviews over the internet again.

Metaphorically speaking of course, playing XvT or Freespace without fingers might be a bit difficult.

[GhylTarvoke]

To get muslim preachers on the line and make them be crystal clear that they condemn any and every kind of violence done to fellow human beings, and to pressure them into saying this much more often, is thousands of times more effective.

I have no idea what they're doing. Why don't we hear more from them? If I were religious, and members of my religion committed mass murder in its name, I'd take every opportunity to condemn and disown them. If my religious leaders failed to do so, I'd fly into a tooth-chattering rage.

There are places where that sort of call to action is better placed.

I rarely see that call to action. Politicians either lack the spine, or lump all Muslims together.

[Det. Bullock]

Islam is not centralized, it literally has no clergy, for every Imam that would go on the internet and talk against violence, ten idiots that probably didn't even read the Quramn very carefully could very well do the same and praise ISIS until kingdom come.

Being an Imam is a matter of just go out and start preaching, they have schools but aren't required, only that people listen to you while spouting whatever nonsense you are saying.

[GhylTarvoke]

I'd be slightly more sympathetic if Imams did go on the internet and talk against violence. ISIS knows how useful the internet is.

A call to action shouldn't even be necessary here.

[Grizzly]

To get muslim preachers on the line and make them be crystal clear that they condemn any and every kind of violence done to fellow human beings, and to pressure them into saying this much more often, is thousands of times more effective.

I have no idea what they're doing. Why don't we hear more from them? If I were religious, and members of my religion committed mass murder in its name, I'd take every opportunity to condemn and disown them. If my religious leaders failed to do so, I'd fly into a tooth-chattering rage.

They are making themselves heard. I find it slightly discomforting that people do not appear to be listening. When Utoya happened, it wasn't like the various christian instances of Norway were met with the same suspiciouns.

What the **** is even the point of this rathole, Islamist violence is something that must be opposed regardless of the percentage of some arbitrary mass shooting tracker it constitutes, and gun violence is a blight on American society independent of which factions are holding the guns, and of course this has nothing to do with TotalBiscuit's subreddit but I suppose this thread was destined to be a drama release valve from the start.

Yes. Also, homophobia is a blight upon humanity and should be vigeriously eradicated.

[Phantom Hoover]

They are making themselves heard. I find it slightly discomforting that people do not appear to be listening. When Utoya happened, it wasn't like the various christian instances of Norway were met with the same suspiciouns.

Right, but it's not like 61% of Norwegian Christians, when polled, said that membership of the youth wing of the Labour party should be illegal. I detest the alt-right trying to use this as a stick to beat Islam with but it definitely must bear some of the blame here.

[GhylTarvoke]

They are making themselves heard. I find it slightly discomforting that people do not appear to be listening. When Utoya happened, it wasn't like the various christian instances of Norway were met with the same suspiciouns.

My faith in humanity is marginally restored. Maybe more people would listen if more Imams came forward?

The Utoya comparison is... bad. That's not even close to a mass murder in the name of Christianity.