Shannon Watts: When Mass Shooters Are White Men, Why Are We Told Gun Laws Won’t Work?

Shannon Watts with Michael Bloomberg (courtesy politicalarena.org)

Shannon Watts (above left) is the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a wholly owned subsidiary of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s (above right) Everytown for Gun Safety. While Ms. Watts has maintained something of a low profile over the last few months, there’s nothing like a mass shooting to bring out the doyenne of disarmament. In a post Sutherland Springs slaughter article for elle.com, Ms. Watts plays the race card . . .

After acts of terrorism that don’t involve guns, there are calls to tighten laws. But when it comes to mass shootings like Sutherland Springs, which are most often perpetrated by white men, we’re told that strengthening our gun laws just won’t work. Instead, we get the tired trope of thoughts and prayers. But if thoughts and prayers alone were enough to prevent gun violence, Americans wouldn’t get shot in our places of worship.

Ms. Watts is implying that gun rights advocates block “sensible gun reform” (or whatever she’s calling gun control these days) to protect white privilege. That gun rights advocates are inherently and secretly racist. That the white Powers That Be would support gun control if the mass shooters were black. Or if they themselves were black. Or something.

Hang on. What does a spree killer’s ethnicity have to do with anything? In fact, isn’t it racist to suggest that it does? If I were to write that a larger percentage of America’s black population commit firearms-related crimes than the country’s caucasian population, I have a feeling I’d be called a racist. So I won’t.

But the point remains: Ms. Watts is an anti-gun rights social justice warrior, an agitprop agitator who tries to stimulate white guilt to forward her statist agenda. One who doesn’t want anything to do with the facts.

Mass shooting perpetrators by race, 1982 to 2017 (courtesy statista.com)

For example, statista.com discovered that white people committed just over half of all the mass shootings in the U.S. between 1982 and 2017.

That stat doesn’t directly contradict Ms. Watt’s implication that a white “power elite” is blocking gun control because it doesn’t care when white people shoot a lot of people. But it does take some of the wind out of the wind bag’s sails. Doesn’t it?

comments

  1. avatar Noishkel says:

    Abject racism: doesn’t count when it’s against white people #ThingsDemocratsBelieveAsAReligion.

  2. avatar BLoving says:

    Pretty sure we consistently tell you gun owner control laws never work as you say they will, Shannon… 🤠

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Exactly. We’re against gun control laws because they always punish the innocent and law-abiding, while also doing virtually nothing to prevent criminal violence.

      People of the Gun said the same thing after Fort Hood (Arabic), Virginia Tech (Asian), the Navy Yard (black), the Florida airport (Hispanic), the Pulse (Hispanic), and those are only the recent top-of-mind examples.

      And we’ll keep saying it. The only people who are applying bigoted thinking to this question are the gun-controllers.

      1. avatar AKM Sarah says:

        Pulse nightclub shooter was of middle eastern descent, not Hispanic.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          I stand corrected. And it still doesn’t matter. Maybe that’s why I forgot? 🙂

  3. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Mass shootings are by white men? How about the mass shooting currently going on in Chicago, 580 victims just this year? Black shooters, black victims, where are these “white men” you speak of?

  4. avatar Evey259 says:

    Seems to me whites are still under represented in mass shootings on a per-capita basis. Come on, guys, step it up.

    1. avatar CLarson says:

      You nailed it. Whites commit less mass shootings per capita. The real question is why some minorities are overrepresented as mass shooters even when gang violence is excluded. Why is that?

  5. avatar Avid Reader says:

    Says Shannon, who now lives in Boulder, Colorado, which is 88% white according to the 2010 census, and has a median single family home price of $840K.

  6. avatar BDub says:

    I other news, majority-race does majority of stuff in majority-race’s country.

    Actually, if you crunch the numbers, whites are actually under-represented. Just sayin.

    1. avatar MilitantCentrist says:

      Dude, no. Math is racist.

  7. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    Our thoughts and prayers are for respect, for the hope to get along with others, the guidance to make this place a better world to live in and to have the patience to deal with people like Mrs. Watts.

    Our thoughts are with the victims and our prayers are our conversations and connection between us and Him.

    If I could pray and stop mass shootings then I would be praying for it several times a day, every day. That’s not how prayer works, you don’t just get what you pray for or we’d all be a lot more religious.

    This condescending attitude against prayer and Christianity after this tragedy is highly disrespectful and is not winning over anyone. Believe in it or don’t, but don’t criticize it, and if you are, at least be a little consistent, because even when a tragedy is steeped in terror in the name of Islam you certainly have nothing to say against those thoughts and prayers.

    And yes, we do ask to tighten laws after terror attacks because it’s clear that we could have stopped it with certain laws. We don’t ask for gun control because for one, the existing laws failed, and for two, guns are a right, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, coming to this country is not a right, nor should it be: it’s a privilege and we have every right to restrict it as much as we damn well please if we don’t want you and you don’t meet our criteria.

  8. avatar DJ says:

    Face it guys, she is just not very bright. This is why the 19th, brought to you by the supporters of the 18th, was a bad idea.

    1. avatar Alex says:

      Who then, in your opinion, deserves the right to vote? And Why?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Property owning heads of households who pay taxes. It’s not rocket science. Bring it back to the family unit and voting becomes much more about rational choices and much less about muh’ feefees. More importantly, people who contribute nothing to the public purse should get no say in how said money is spent.

        1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

          Wow…you actually went there…I love it…

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          When in the years past that I have been here have I ever hesitated to call out stupidity? Universal suffrage is possibly the dumbest thing in a modern democracy. It is the deluded fantasy that 51% of drunk torch waving peasants are right 100% of the time.

        3. avatar AKM Sarah says:

          That’s a good one Serge, why did you ever leave the comedy circuit? Too much traveling?

        4. avatar The Punisher says:

          Serge –

          The problem isn’t that you “went there” it’s that you haven’t gone far enough.

          You’re totally correct when you say that it’s completely insane and irrational to think that 51% of drunk torch waving peasants would be right 100% of the time…the problem is you can replace the “drunk peasants” with any other type of person and you’d still be correct. So the real issue is that we’re insane to even have a system where 51% of anyone’s vote decides peoples’ lives and deaths via statutes – feel good or otherwise.

          All natural law is known. Regardless of new technology or changing mores or anything else these laws remain immutable. What is there to vote on? Why do we need a system where we rely on other people to decide these things for us? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity.

          The fact of the matter is that we need to close this chapter in political experimentation, realize that democratic republics, while a step in the right direction, have been shown to be inadequate to keep and secure the rights of people and should be discarded.

          Does this mean lawlessness? No. This means we need to allow citizens to voluntarily experiment and create new forms of “government” or perhaps none. Will some of these experiments lead to tyranny and suffering? I’m positive. But how is that any different that what we have in the world now? But some experiments will yield fruit that will be sweet and perhaps the next 300 years can be a giant leap forward in terms of liberty and freedom and sanity.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          That’s why I’m a conservative and not a libertarian. While I do see your argument, I would argue that the risks of such an experiment are much higher in 2017 than they were in 1776. The history of the 20th century is the history of such “experiments” murdering tens of millions of people. A good example is socialism, something that may look enticing on paper, but that has resulted in a quarter billion dead bodies in the 20th century alone.

        6. avatar raptor jesus says:

          I hate you but I love this comment so much.

          Democracy (in its current form) does not work.

          That’s why China is drinking our milkshake.

      2. avatar GunDoc says:

        Alex,

        To put it succinctly, NOBODY.

        Voting is not, and has never been, a right.

        Nowhere in the BOR is voting enshrined as a natural right, because it is not.

        The 19th conferred a benefit/privilege onto the Citizens, a specialized class of chattel humans created after 1865. Remember, Congress had no power to “free” anyone, so they simply used their power of interstate commerce to “regulate” (which means make uniform, equal, or standardized). The slaves were not “freed,” everyone else was made chattel.

        Voting was originally a hard-earned privilege entrusted to those with actual skin in the game. If you have something to lose, you tend to take it very seriously.

        Everybody screams and beats their breast, tears their hair when it is suggested that only those with something to lose should be able to vote, but that is actually an extremely good idea. The bare bones version of this would be: if you are receiving any sort of welfare from Government, you are ineligible to vote, as that would be a conflict of interest. After all, what is to prevent you from voting for that party that promises the biggest payout?re

        Holding real property would be another benchmark for eligibility.

        There’s a reason things were done the way they were. Circumventing these things in the interest of “feelz” and “justice” will lead to catastrophe.

        Oh wait. They already have.

        1. avatar Alex says:

          I could kind of get behind the only those not on welfare can vote, but I still think it is a potentially dangerous concept. If only those people can vote, you still end up with some ‘underclass’ of voters. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to assume that their interests will run counter to the remaining voters and now only people who make > 200k can vote because the have the “most” skin in the game.

          I know it is a slippery slope, but everyone always votes in their own self interest. When you give one group the ability to vote out their competition you will end up with one small group of people who don’t think they actually did anything wrong.

          Democracy sucks but it is better than anything else.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ok, simple solution. Weighted voting. Your vote is worth the grand total of your average tax bill for the entire previous term of the office you’re voting for. It would be a very simple database to set up.

  9. avatar Gary says:

    Current laws failed because some lame excuse of a clerk didn’t put the information on this deranged cockroach into the federal database which current laws would have worked. Also, why was there nobody in that TEXAS church carrying I mean it was TEXAS for crying out loud. Thought everybody in Texas carried, we have plenty of people prepared for this worst case situation where I attend church. Love my enemies comes after services. None the less, deepest sympathies for the families affected. No laws can remove the pain and grief.

  10. avatar GS650G says:

    Those stats seem to mirror the population demographic , especially when Hispanics are counted with whites which is typical.

  11. avatar Excedrine says:

    Pretty sure gun control is inherently racist unto itself. But, don’t just take my word for it.

    http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

    https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

    Clayton E. Cramer, Master of Arts in History from Sonoma State University, whose works informed the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in United States v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999) and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), as well as McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

    http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Mags/dark-secret-of-jim-crow.html

    David Kopel, Bachelor of Arts in History from Brown University, won the National Geographic Society Prize for best History thesis with a biography of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. He graduated magna com laude from the University of Michigan Law School. He was also a contributing editor of the Michigan Law Review.

    Gun ownership, whether we like it or not, is unquestionably a civil rights issue. Gun control always was and still is today written for the express purpose of discriminating against anyone who isn’t white.

  12. avatar Ralph says:

    If just one more of these left wing bitchez disses me because of the color of my skin, I just might become cross with her and set her up on a date with Harvey Weinstein. He hates the NRA too, so they should have a lot to talk about.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Let him go all Cosby on her ass.

      Was that racist of me?

    2. avatar AKM Sarah says:

      This ^ 😁

      1. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

        I would have to be the one drugged before I would with her.

  13. avatar W says:

    “After acts of terrorism that don’t involve guns, there are calls to tighten laws. But when it comes to mass shootings like Sutherland Springs, which are most often perpetrated by white men, we’re told that strengthening our gun laws just won’t work. ”

    Well, that confirms it. The activist just isn’t up to date on recent studies. No, gun laws don’t reduce mass shootings. Heck, Clinton’s AWB didn’t prevent Columbine, did it? Background checks, Connecticut laws, and a gun safe didn’t prevent Sandy Hook.

    Someone more interested in studying things, and less interested in parroting the Bloomberg line, did an analysis.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.896916ae6c90

    Undoubtedly, Watts would rather be less informed but well paid and popular.

  14. avatar joetast says:

    It’s all bullshit, from start to finsh

  15. avatar Tim says:

    Shannon Watts needs to look at U.S. Demographics by race and ethnicity. The U.S. Census in 2010 found 72.4% Americans identify as WHITE and 12.6% identify as BLACK (or African American). If 51 mass shooters were White and 15 were black, then the rate of black shooters is higher and the rate of white shooters is MUCH lower.
    Suck it Shannon Watts.

  16. avatar pwrserge says:

    This is your brain on feminism. Good job ladies, you destroy an entire generation of men and then complain when some of them go batshit insane. Have fun living to a ripe old age in a house full of cats. As with most things, technology marches on, pretty soon, the female of the species will be functionally obsolete.

    1. avatar AKM Sarah says:

      Then when the opposite sex is obsolete, we can all be gay!!! 😃 … Hmmm isn’t talking about the uselessness of the male of the species a major talking point for radical feminists? I am noticing a trend here.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        No, the point is that the feminists won’t be able to extort men into doing what they want.

        But good job dodging the fact of how much damage feminism has done to society.

  17. avatar Eng says:

    How come when arguing how many mass shootings occur they count “any event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of four or more people with no cooling-off period”. Hello gang violence, thanks for the help!

    But when arguing that white men are evil they just count events like sandy hook and texas?

  18. avatar SirZog says:

    I like that they can share the same clothes…

  19. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    The silicone in Watts’ Monsanto implants has leaked, migrated to her head, and permanently damaged what little brain she had.

  20. avatar the phantom says:

    While Ms Watts has maintained something of a low profile over the last few months, there’s nothing like a fake mass shooting to bring out the doyenne of disarmament

    fixed it for ya!

  21. avatar MLee says:

    Hey Shannon, I just ordered a 40 round Circle 10 magazine for my Ak47 variant from K-Var, and you wanna know something, I did it mostly because you slimy antis are against it. You slobs make such a big deal out of it, so I decided my four 30 round mags just wasn’t enough. So thanks for prodding me into getting busy and actually placing the order. I appreciate it.

  22. avatar Eli2016 says:

    Interesting. I own several guns and I carry all day every day except in banks and on Federal property but I’m not white. Does that mean I get a pass Ms. Watts?

    1. avatar AKM Sarah says:

      Yes Eli, you get a pass, but it costs $17.83, and you must pick it up at the Democratic headquarters.

    2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      So, Eli… not in a bank? Nobody ever robbed a bank or shot someone in a bank where you live? What would make banks safer than churches there? No crazy people around your town?

      I carry every day, everywhere I go. Period. If there is a place (can’t think of any but the post office) that doesn’t want me to carry… I just don’t go there. I think I went to the post awful twice in the last five years… I consider it one of those “stupid places” …

      The idea of a crazy massacre in a church in a town of only a few hundred… was certainly a shock to me, but it had no real influence on my decision to carry a gun. I’ve been doing that for ten years now.

  23. avatar Bob Watson says:

    When the Hysterical Mother makes vaguely word-like noises with it’s mouth, it is only natural to interpret those sounds as human speech, words with specific meanings. This is not the case. There is no intent to communicate anything, it is merely trying to get more of Sugar Daddy’s dollars.

  24. avatar Flame Deleted says:

    _________ Watts

  25. avatar Larry X says:

    Fracking TWATS has only one place in life that she MAY know something about! That is the bedroom! Barring that, it’s the kitchen and cleaning the house! Exactly where she belongs! She should keep her damn legs shut to avoid her lips from spouting such BS ignorance as she continues to do!

  26. avatar Bubba Watson says:

    Mom = A woman who allowed a man to knock her up.
    The word “Mom”, by itself, in no way guarantees intelligence, knowledge, decency, usefulness, purity, wisdom, good sense or any other character trait.

    1. avatar Snatchums says:

      Right? I’m sick of moms being held as the paragon of all that is just and noble in the world.

      What exactly about shitting out a kid (or 5) and raising it to be an entitled, self absorbed little brat magically makes a woman wise and intelligent?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        It doesn’t. In fact, in the top 1% of their respective groups women are a lot dumber than men. Sorry ladies, but test results don’t lie. For ever top 1% woman, there are 3-5 (depending on whose research you trust) men of equal of higher intelligence.

  27. avatar bob says:

    So half of the murders are committed by Non-Whites!

    That seems so….. average.

    And what do you mean “you people” and “white people”
    Racist old bitty.

  28. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

    The big threat right now is that the Brady bunch has (according to Politico anyway) filed suit against Slide-Fire for “emotional or psychological harm”. If they win, magazine manufacturers will be right behind.

  29. avatar Wiregrass says:

    Maybe because the ONLY time you and Bloom Daddy rant about stronger gun laws is when the mass murderer is a white man. See how that works?

  30. avatar LHW says:

    The only thing that that picture shows is a woman and her sugar daddy.

  31. avatar little horn says:

    no, she is just stupid. the only places that enacted tougher gun laws after a non-white committed a mass shooting are California and Florida. so 2 out of 51 states, not so much a majority. Not to mention the thousands of black gang bangers that shoot each other and we don’t harp for gun control even then. not to mention the black guy that live streamed him shooting a white woman and killing her. still no calls for “minority gun control” as she implys. Nah, she can’t be bothered with intellectual integrity.

  32. avatar Roymond says:

    It sounds to me like she’s saying that blacks know their place and will blindly follow laws, and thus whites are the problem.

    How insultingly condescending to blacks.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email