Another Democrat commits a mass shooting against Easter Worshipers.

Religion across the world and democrats everywhere offer their thoughts and twitter hashtags, shrug their shoulder and virtue signal about the latest woke movement.

Obviously this person is mentally disturbed, not a thug, an animal, or a radical.

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2019/04/28/church-shooting-west-baltimore/

Did you even read your own link article? It says that it has nothing to do with the church.

@Gaming-Planet: actually considering the area of Baltimore this tragedy occurred. The right will promptly label this shooter a thug.

Desperate thread is desperate

We should really do something about these shootings. Gun reform? Improved social programs?

Pathetic even by your regular standards.

herp derp

christans don't worship easter, they worship jesus

No, silly. Ban religion.

1. I see no mention of his political affiliation.

2. I see no mention of Church/Religion related activity.

3. Another? Which was the first? Did you mean the ISIS attacks last week - who are part of a conservative (not Dems) religion?

Why are you using a tragedy to troll with fiction? I get it, your team is the one who does all the domestic terrorism recently. So you feel you need to defend them with this kind of fake news shit-posting. You suck so bad.

@zaryia: You do this all the time.

I post completely fictional thread titles and content?

Please link the thread were I completely had to make up someone being a Republican and make up then entire series of events. The OP just went full Alex Jones on a tragic event to troll this section.

I typically post fact based events and directly cite the story, not fiction like the OP did. It doesn't even belong in this section.

You know what's funny is 7 people were killed in this shooting, but I've heard nothing about it on the news. too busy reporting on the one death in the CA shooting. Neither is good, but why only one gets national attention? Agenda or just happenstance?

Edit: I just realized this post could be sending wrong message. For clarification, I'm contrasting the affluence of the areas in which the shootings occurred. I'm not making a statement about religous preference, etc. My apologies for any confusion.

@sonicare: 1 killed, 8 wounded

https://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Police-7-shot-1-fatally-in-latest-Baltimore-13802402.php

The country doesn't care because it happened on a low income, African American neighborhood

No. We should have better gun control laws regardless of a shooter's political ideology.

Also you're just making up stuff as there is no suspect or motive. It says so in the article. I don't understand why this behavior is allowed in this forum.

That's a shame. I want to be clear that I'm not stating the reporting and concern about the first shooting is bad, but just that it would be nice if the press covered these other shootings with equal concern. Every group of people is important and matters.

An agenda can not be pushed by objectively reporting on such a matter so it will, for the most part, be a non issue outside of perhaps the immediate area. That doesn't say it won't be picked up elsewhere but for the most part it won't be of interest.

@sonicare: I don't disagree with you, but the country as a whole does

people who want to see agenda will take anecdotal evidence like this as evidence of agenda.

people who do not want to see agenda will take anecdotal evidence like this as anecdotal evidence.

Why has the thread title not been changed this isn't Breitbart. We can't just post random fiction.

You can objectively report on a subject and still push for a particular point of view by how much coverage you devote to something. For instance, by reporting solely on violent crime committed by a particular ethnic or racial group and ignoring crimes committed by other groups, you could give the impression that a specific group is committing more violent crimes. That perception is given despite you not presenting any false information.

Now, with my earlier post, my opinion is that what's most likely is the agenda of "news entertainment". Some stories will sell more or generate more views so they get more coverage. Perhaps, shootings in some low income communities just don't generate as much buzz. Just my opinion, however. I suspect people are more interested about what's going on in their own backyard than in an area they would not be as familiar with.

But honestly, you don't think that if this shooting happened in a more affluent area it would get more buzz?

of course it would get more attention.

1) it is a more rare event for shootings to happen in safe, affluent neighborhoods.. that's why they're safe neighborhoods

2) we've all been trained that shootings happen frequently in poorer, densely populated areas. how did that happen? because we hear about shootings in these areas ALL the time. which incidentally, negates the "how come this is never reported" argument. it doesn't catch a lot of attention because they happen all the time and we all know they happen all the time because they're always reported.

the whole "why isn't this reported" thinking is weird to me. you see it all the time. how do the people complaining about something not being reported even KNOW about it if it wasn't reported?

Wouldn't objective reporting be signified by covering all of these incidents rather than one that will promote an agenda? As an example, if the murders (shooting) in Chicago were covered, the current agenda would go flaccid in the wind because not of the talking points would hold water.

A local white man just killed 7 people here a few days back. Did you hear about it on the national?

I doubt "here" is a major, well known democratically controlled city like Chicago. If I may correct your naivety, Chicago plays a big role with our last President. The city hold major significance.

Edit: What's being ignored by the left is how the problems in the city are not isolated. There's a murder every time you turn around.

Thank the NRA and it's adherents for that.........

I went ahead and flagged it. This topic title completely disregards the article that the OP linked.

I've left it open, it's a response (in title) to another thread here. If more of them show up, I'll lock them right away.

But the other seems to be based in some sort of fact. This one claims something completely opposed to the information in the article that the OP cites because they didn't like that other thread.

The link in the other thread states that the suspect is a Trump supporter? If so I must have missed it.

I was wrong. I thought so because of the claim and it better fit the bill of a person who identifies as white nationalist. I'm actually pretty upset that I was mislead on that. Could you, I don't know, take both down in that case? You're gonna do what you're gonna do, but this is literally what misinformation does.

When did the subject get narrowed to just democratically controlled cities? Last I read, you were talking about:

And then you narrow it down to NOT ALL, just ONE covering YOUR agenda.

WTF?

Start with finding the clue in post twenty three. The places where shootings/murders are a major problem seem largely ignored but isolated incidents are treated as if common place. Why? The left wing MSM will extend tremendous coverage if it thinks its agenda can be furthered but if it is not apropos, it is ignored.

I live in a major southeastern metro area. Murders are a daily occurrence in these parts. It doesn't make the news because it's mostly pillbillies and domestic violence.

But you'll spend no more than a moment considering that, and even less time researching it, because you've already made up your mind.

I'll let these two live their lives. Any new ones and I'll lock them. These two serves as examples on these boards on what misinformation does and how many/few realize thread title is misinformation.

With that said, any other mod or admin might come over this and lock them. Because they both deserve to be locked.