No. It just takes some basic intelligence to figure out that mass shootings are shootings of multiple people. Sorry that concept is hard for you to understand.
There is, fundamentally, a difference between a crime that, when reported, makes your average citizen go “OMG! That could have been me!” vs. a crime which, while tragic, does not endanger the general public or people at random.
“Mass shooting” carries with it a sense of reckless disregard or casual indifference that does NOT apply to, say, crimes of passion.
Gun Violence Archive treats that as a mass shooting. Unless you lived next door to the shooter in question, you were never at risk. The shooting was not random, and it did not happen in a public space.
So why do they categorize it as the same sort of crime as the UNLV shooting? Which was random and did take place in a public space?
Because they have an agenda and want to pump up their numbers.
Ummm…why would you not consider that a mass shooting? Do you not have neighbors? It kind of seems like that really could be anybody considering many people have at least one unhinged neighbor around them.
A mass shooting happens in a public place with random targets, making your average person feel victimized even if they weren’t there. It’s an act of terror, the murder is ancillary.
In the case of a targeted killing at a private home? That’s just murder.
Where does your definition come from? I’m not saying it’s wrong, it’s just not the same as what I and people I know use. For context, I live in the US.
Well that’s nice that you made up your own definition…
Your distinction can make sense but not how you are looking at it. Saying murder is ancillary is ridiculous. The killers in those cases are not just wildly shooting in the air and it just so happens to hit people and kill them. Killing them is their intent. You could make an argument to split our random mass shootings vs targeted but there is still a pretty obvious base reason for both of those: ease of access to guns.
Of course, it doesn’t do any good to say “their definition is bullshit” if I’m not willing to provide an alternative.
We need to distinguish terrorist level events where one or more nuts with a gun enter a public space with the intention of causing as much mayhem as possible than other forms of gun crimes where armed people do end up shooting, but that was not their stated purpose, it just worked out that way.
That’s is I and many others define it…
If you want to scare people, sure, you can define it that way.
No. It just takes some basic intelligence to figure out that mass shootings are shootings of multiple people. Sorry that concept is hard for you to understand.
There is, fundamentally, a difference between a crime that, when reported, makes your average citizen go “OMG! That could have been me!” vs. a crime which, while tragic, does not endanger the general public or people at random.
“Mass shooting” carries with it a sense of reckless disregard or casual indifference that does NOT apply to, say, crimes of passion.
For example:
https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/at-least-3-fatally-shot-in-dallas-home-suspect-wanted/
Gun Violence Archive treats that as a mass shooting. Unless you lived next door to the shooter in question, you were never at risk. The shooting was not random, and it did not happen in a public space.
So why do they categorize it as the same sort of crime as the UNLV shooting? Which was random and did take place in a public space?
Because they have an agenda and want to pump up their numbers.
Ummm…why would you not consider that a mass shooting? Do you not have neighbors? It kind of seems like that really could be anybody considering many people have at least one unhinged neighbor around them.
A mass shooting happens in a public place with random targets, making your average person feel victimized even if they weren’t there. It’s an act of terror, the murder is ancillary.
In the case of a targeted killing at a private home? That’s just murder.
Where does your definition come from? I’m not saying it’s wrong, it’s just not the same as what I and people I know use. For context, I live in the US.
Definition comes from a position of rationality and not wanting to scare people. :)
I’m confused. Is your position that yours is the most generally-held definition, or that it should be?
Well that’s nice that you made up your own definition…
Your distinction can make sense but not how you are looking at it. Saying murder is ancillary is ridiculous. The killers in those cases are not just wildly shooting in the air and it just so happens to hit people and kill them. Killing them is their intent. You could make an argument to split our random mass shootings vs targeted but there is still a pretty obvious base reason for both of those: ease of access to guns.
Of course, it doesn’t do any good to say “their definition is bullshit” if I’m not willing to provide an alternative.
We need to distinguish terrorist level events where one or more nuts with a gun enter a public space with the intention of causing as much mayhem as possible than other forms of gun crimes where armed people do end up shooting, but that was not their stated purpose, it just worked out that way.