8 Dead one wounded at 3 Asian Spas in Atlanta area suspect arrested.

Just to keep things in perspective

https://twitter.com/anncoulter/status/1177292660681428992

 

Were these mass shootings national news?

 

It's simple: the media called it "Wuhan coronavirus." Your convenient cut off point of when the virus was official named, doesn't mean that it wasn't racist to call it that! The WHO back in 2015 said that viruses shouldn't be labeled in that way! Now, is Trump MORE guilty of naming the virus after the country/locality of origin? Sure! You have also FAILED miserably at explaining how it is racist/xenophobic to call it these names, considering that "Wuhan" is not a nationality or a race and "China" is not a nationality or a race. So therefore it cannot be racist or xenophobic!

 

Your response is either disingenuous or you have no idea what the word "racism" means.

It's dangerous not to know. I know of people who inadvertently defend racism only because they don't know what it is. You should try to find a way to have that clear in your mind before using the word.

No! It was not racist to call it "Wuhan coronavirus" before it had an official name. And it most certainly was after it did.

 

I know that it has nothing to do with convenient cut off points.

You still haven't explained WHY it was racist before the official naming but not after. Nor have you explained how "Wuhan" or "China" is a RACE. There is no logic to it whatsoever, so no wonder you can't explain it! I'm sure that you would cry "RACISM" if a virus which originated in New York was being named as the "New York virus" or the "US virus" by Chinese politicians! I doubt that you would even if they called it the "WHITE virus!"

 

I did explain it: using words to describe something that has not been named is not the same as using them for the purpose of creating xenophobic reactions.

And there is no such thing as "RACE".

 

Correct. However, this doesn't explain why it is racist to say "Wuhan/China virus."

What the hell are you talking about?

 

Extremely relevant. Many people attempt suicide as a call for help. They would have spent days, months, years contemplating it. Many call the emergency services or friends straight after they have carried out their chosen method. Using the easiest option of a gun results in a fatal attempt. Most suicide attempts using other means result in that help being received and many then go on to live a near normal life

 

After they have carried out a CERTAIN TYPE of method, right?

 

Why have you cut my post, the part that is irrelevant to your question?

 

Are you familiar with all of the suicide methods?

 

Do you actually have a point to make or are you going to ask en endless list of questions?

 

I'm not convinced that the majority of suicide attempts end in phone calls. I thought that jumping off a bridge was a fairly common method, and I don't think someone is going to be making too many phone calls after doing that.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Most common in the first world where guns are not easily available is drug overdose and is rarely fatal due to external intervention often caused by the patient phoning someone close just after the overdose to say why they did it. I did not say "majority of suicide attempts end in phone calls". Many drug overdose attempted suicides are found before the patient dies. Hence around 70% survive the suicide attempt.

Having a gun two feet away is much easier than having to walk onto a bridge and throw yourself off. Just the walk could buy time to rethink. Many are talked out of it while they sit on the ledge. Not so when a gun is Two feet away. Two thirds of male suicides in US was through the use of a gun, one third of female suicides.

 

Yeah, fair points actually. More relevantly though, is the idea that suicide by gun is just not the same as homicide by gun. So the number suicides by gun simply shouldn't be included in the gun death data when talking about how to prevent mass shootings. Neither should ANY gun death which isn't specifically mass shooting gun death.

 

LeeatWater standalone post was not referring to "prevent mass shootings". We've now established that the easy availablity of guns has increased the number of suicides above the total number of suicides if guns were not easily available

 

So then why are we talking about it in this thread about the mass shooting?