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.
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.