| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5353
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
 Posted: 10/05/17 11:48 pm ::: Deadliest Mass Killin of All Time? Racial Priority n History |
Reply  |
|
What is the deadliest mass killing of all time in America? Many would argue the latest mass shooting in Las Vegas with 59 dead and several hundred injured. Based on many history books taught in our schools, this would be correct. But its not.
" In May 1921, approximately 300 black Americans were killed during the Tulsa Race Massacre, which destroyed Oklahoma's "Black Wall Street," according to the Smithsonian."
And lets not forget the many massacres of Native Americans, several totaling above the Vegas numbers.
It would be more accurate to say "deadliest mass killing of modern times". |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 12:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
You're mixing apples and oranges.
They have correctly said this is the deadliest mass shooting, as in one person shooting a bunch of people at one location in a single event.
If you're going to count the things you listed, then you'd have to include the nearly 3000 dead and 6000 wounded on 9/11, or maybe even the nearly 8000 dead and 43,000 wounded at Gettysburg. But like each of the things you listed those are of an entirely different nature than a single shooting episode.
So the statement about Last Vegas is correct.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 12:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| I prefer "deadliest shooting by a lone gunman in US history".
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 1:35 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I don't think the deadliest mass killing would have to be by just one killer. What if it turns out there was a second LV shooter. Would it not still be (if it is) the deadliest mass shooting?
What I do think has to be true is that the mass killing has to be a criminal homicide. The killing of others in war is not considered criminal homicide. The battles with Indians were considered war. Therefore, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse did not perpetrate the deadliest mass murder in American history. |
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5353
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 8:12 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
I don't think the deadliest mass killing would have to be by just one killer. What if it turns out there was a second LV shooter. Would it not still be (if it is) the deadliest mass shooting?
What I do think has to be true is that the mass killing has to be a criminal homicide. The killing of others in war is not considered criminal homicide. The battles with Indians were considered war. Therefore, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse did not perpetrate the deadliest mass murder in American history. |
Depends on how you see fighting back in self defense. |
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5353
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 8:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
You're mixing apples and oranges.
They have correctly said this is the deadliest mass shooting, as in one person shooting a bunch of people at one location in a single event.
If you're going to count the things you listed, then you'd have to include the nearly 3000 dead and 6000 wounded on 9/11, or maybe even the nearly 8000 dead and 43,000 wounded at Gettysburg. But like each of the things you listed those are of an entirely different nature than a single shooting episode.
So the statement about Last Vegas is correct. |
Mass killing is mass killing. if you want to go that route then qualify it by adding "by an individual shooter" when you say deadliest mass shooting/killing. |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 5:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hyperetic wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
You're mixing apples and oranges.
They have correctly said this is the deadliest mass shooting, as in one person shooting a bunch of people at one location in a single event.
If you're going to count the things you listed, then you'd have to include the nearly 3000 dead and 6000 wounded on 9/11, or maybe even the nearly 8000 dead and 43,000 wounded at Gettysburg. But like each of the things you listed those are of an entirely different nature than a single shooting episode.
So the statement about Last Vegas is correct. |
Mass killing is mass killing. if you want to go that route then qualify it by adding "by an individual shooter" when you say deadliest mass shooting/killing. |
You're the one mischaracterizing what this has been called in order to try to make some nonexistent point.
I'd say " nice try," but it really wasn't.
|
|
sambista
Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 16951
Location: way station of life
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/07/17 5:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| i get what you're saying, hyper. for the record, at least cnn has consistently said the deadliest mass killing "in modern history."
_________________
no justice, no peace.
|
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5353
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/17 12:27 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| hyperetic wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
You're mixing apples and oranges.
They have correctly said this is the deadliest mass shooting, as in one person shooting a bunch of people at one location in a single event.
If you're going to count the things you listed, then you'd have to include the nearly 3000 dead and 6000 wounded on 9/11, or maybe even the nearly 8000 dead and 43,000 wounded at Gettysburg. But like each of the things you listed those are of an entirely different nature than a single shooting episode.
So the statement about Last Vegas is correct. |
Mass killing is mass killing. if you want to go that route then qualify it by adding "by an individual shooter" when you say deadliest mass shooting/killing. |
You're the one mischaracterizing what this has been called in order to try to make some nonexistent point.
I'd say " nice try," but it really wasn't. |
Exactly how am I mischaracterizing? Are we discussing mass killings or not? There was not a distinction made between individual and group when it was initially reported by many media outlets. Some like GMA had the courtesy at least to say "in modern times". My point is that history taught has biases. Are you familiar with those mass murders? |
|
JayeRunner
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 725
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/12/17 9:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| sambista wrote: |
| i get what you're saying, hyper. for the record, at least cnn has consistently said the deadliest mass killing "in modern history." |
That is also term I heard CBS use. I also remember someone (news Anchor or reporter or guest) mentioning "... in modern history, defined as since the1920's". Had me curious.
|
|
Force10rulz
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 1966
Location: Puget Sound
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/19/17 5:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| December29,1890 Wounded Knee with 300 women, children and men was the worst mass killing.
_________________
Seattle Storm 3 times Champions
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/19/17 6:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Force10rulz wrote: |
| December29,1890 Wounded Knee with 300 women, children and men was the worst mass killing. |
And 300 is more than 2,996 (September 11, 2001) in what form of new math?
Or maybe something over 1,000 on April 13, 1919 at Jallianwala Bagh.
Or 33,771 on September 29, 1941, at Babi Yar,
Or 16,500 in January 1842 in the retreat from Kabul,
Or 4,000 on December 30, 1066, in the Granada Massacre,
Or 1,600 on May 28, 1644 in the Storming of Bolton,
Or 15,000 on April 30, 1876 at Batak
Or 22,000 on March 5, 1940 at the Katyn Forest
Or etc., etc., etc.,.......
The point being that 300 barely registers on the long list of "worst mass killings."
|
|
|
|
