In criticizing/accusing other's of not listening to your "logic" you are failing to even consider the fallacy in your own logic. What you are doing is merely speculating on the shooter's motivation - and using stats or certain "things" (what race of person owned the business) as evidence to support your speculative conclusion.But I was talking about the motive, what motivated him to do the shooting. Which was racially motivated, because, one, like you said, massage parlours is a place where Asian women workers account for the majority, that's why he chose it for the shooting, and of course there were women of other ethnicity working there, not discounting them, had their lives taken too, unfortunately. Two, all massage parlours he went to were Asian owned businesses. That means he targeted those businesses.
I have expressed myself clear enough, and I have noticed you are exhibiting the classic sign of someone picking up a fight. They refuse to listen to the logic in other's arguments
The shooter obviously targeted the massage spa's that he targeted. But there is a difference (which you don't seem to understand) between targeting a massage spa that happens to be owned by an Asian vs targeting a massage spa because it is Asian owned. Again, you either don't know the difference or you don't think there is a difference - either way, that is a major flaw in your own logic. Because there is a difference, and I don't think it's been determined which was the case. Ergo, you are merely speculating.
Here's a little thought experiment for you since you are the one implying and expressly stating that somehow which race of person whom owns what or which proportion of the population of what geographic location is what determines if someone is racist or not....
1) If a caucasian person murdered 8 massage spa workers (6 of which happened to be "Asian) in the city of Tokyo (where demographically speaking over 90+% of Tokyo's population is "Asian"), would you still be calling it a racist act? Since you previously stated that since Asians only make up 4% of Georgia's population as "evidence" that the Atlanta shooting was an act of racism, what arbitrary % threshold needs to be met for it not to be an act of racism?
2) If my home is burglarized, and I am in fact a person of colour, was my home burglarized and I happen to be a person of colour or was my home burglarized because I am a person of colour? Is there even enough evidence to make such a determination? And most importantly, do you even know the difference?