Super simple, look at the example I cited of a drug buy gone bad. That’s NOT a mass shooting. The Gun Violence Archive counts it as such even though it happened in a private home, not a public place, the shooters and victims involved were committing another crime when the shooting happened, and they were all there for the explicit purpose of committing that other crime, they didn’t go there to shoot each other.
If you can’t tell the difference between that and some psycho turning up in a grocery store to shoot as many people as possible, I don’t know what to tell you. The circumstances are completely different.
the difference is intent, not outcome. 4 people shot. mass shooting. don’t care why they shot each other. any other country doesn’t just have “drug deals gone bad oops 4 dead but it’s just another tuesday” unless it’s a literal organised crime thing that went REAL bad and would have greater repercussions than just a couple of hicks you know
People do care why they shot each other, because in one case the general public is at risk and in the other the general public is not at risk.
That needs to be the definition of a mass shooting. Let’s pull a hypothetical… if the Heaven’s Gate nutjobs had all shot each other instead of poisoning themselves (39 dead), would you consider that a mass shooting?
For me, it happened on private property, solely among members of a cult, did not involve the public or innocent victims… it’s a tragedy, it’s a failure of multiple social safety nets, but it wouldn’t be the same as someone killing 39 innocent, uninvolved, people in a school or shopping center.
Of course it should count as a mass shooting if 39 people shot themselves/each other. You’re looking for the definition of an act of terrorism, that has nothing to do with mass shooting. If we reverse your logic, and a guy kills 39 innocent bystanders but they used a bomb, would you then also call that a mass shooting?
There is no widely-accepted definition of “mass shooting” and different organizations tracking such incidents use different definitions. Definitions of mass shootings exclude warfare and sometimes exclude instances of gang violence, armed robberies, and familicides. The perpetrator of an ongoing mass shooting may be referred to as an active shooter.
In the United States, the country with the most mass shootings, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012 defines mass killings as three or more killings in a single incident.[1] A Congressional Research Service report from 2013 specifies four or more killings on indiscriminate victims while excluding violence committed as a means to an end, such as robbery or terrorism.[2] Media outlets such as CNN and some crime violence research groups such as the Gun Violence Archive define mass shootings as involving “four or more shot (injured or killed) in a single incident, at the same general time and location, not including the shooter”.[3] Mother Jones magazine defines mass shootings as indiscriminate rampages killing three or more individuals excluding the perpetrator, gang violence, and armed robbery.[4][5] An Australian study from 2006 specifies five individuals killed.[6]
Terrorism has a definition. It’s an act of violence in service to a political ideology. None of the mass shootings have been classified as terrorism, though I’d argue the ones in the predominately black supermarket or church and the one in the predominately hispanic Walmart probably should have been.
Super simple, look at the example I cited of a drug buy gone bad. That’s NOT a mass shooting. The Gun Violence Archive counts it as such even though it happened in a private home, not a public place, the shooters and victims involved were committing another crime when the shooting happened, and they were all there for the explicit purpose of committing that other crime, they didn’t go there to shoot each other.
If you can’t tell the difference between that and some psycho turning up in a grocery store to shoot as many people as possible, I don’t know what to tell you. The circumstances are completely different.
the difference is intent, not outcome. 4 people shot. mass shooting. don’t care why they shot each other. any other country doesn’t just have “drug deals gone bad oops 4 dead but it’s just another tuesday” unless it’s a literal organised crime thing that went REAL bad and would have greater repercussions than just a couple of hicks you know
People do care why they shot each other, because in one case the general public is at risk and in the other the general public is not at risk.
That needs to be the definition of a mass shooting. Let’s pull a hypothetical… if the Heaven’s Gate nutjobs had all shot each other instead of poisoning themselves (39 dead), would you consider that a mass shooting?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)
For me, it happened on private property, solely among members of a cult, did not involve the public or innocent victims… it’s a tragedy, it’s a failure of multiple social safety nets, but it wouldn’t be the same as someone killing 39 innocent, uninvolved, people in a school or shopping center.
Of course it should count as a mass shooting if 39 people shot themselves/each other. You’re looking for the definition of an act of terrorism, that has nothing to do with mass shooting. If we reverse your logic, and a guy kills 39 innocent bystanders but they used a bomb, would you then also call that a mass shooting?
there is no one definition
Terrorism has a definition. It’s an act of violence in service to a political ideology. None of the mass shootings have been classified as terrorism, though I’d argue the ones in the predominately black supermarket or church and the one in the predominately hispanic Walmart probably should have been.