Sure, but it’s really difficult, if not impossible, to define that in objective terms. A shooting involving 4 or more people is easy to collect all the data on. Trying to search for all shootings where someone showed up to an event with the intent to kill many people isn’t really objective or trackable.
Maybe filter out those where both sides are armed, or only count mass shootings when the aggressor went in expecting the victims to not be armed.
The way this is presented gives the impression crime rates, not just mass shootings are way up. Even though it doesn’t specifically say that it’s misleading.
Under my suggestion that would count as a mass shooting. Most malls have do not carry signs at the entrances, so the spree killer expects them to not be armed.
The definition is evolving, for the better in my opinion. The below paper describes some thoughts in the realm which seek to develop a more inclusive definition.
Mass outcome or mass intent? A proposal for an intent-focused, no-minimum casualty count definition of public mass shooting incidents
First, researchers should expand their victim count inclusion criterion to gain valuable insight for public mass shooting prevention, intervention, and harm mitigation. The proposed definition of public mass shootings highlights mass intent instead of the completion of the shooting. Datasets with minimum victim counts are only including cases that occurred in the absence of mitigating situational factors, like fast intervention or strong situational crime prevention. There is always the potential for the environment and the situation to influence the incident outcome, and open-source scholars implementing a minimum casualty criterion might be systematically excluding cases characterized by mass intent and protective environments. Not only does this affect comparisons of environmental and mitigation factors, but it is an especially problematic source of selection bias for scholars aiming to understand the warning signs, behaviors, and psychosocial profiles of public mass shooting perpetrators.
Second, we advocate for scholars to use the current public mass shooting definition and completed, attempted, failed, and foiled outcome terminology. Critics may argue that our proposed definition more so aligns with an active shooter incident than a public mass shooting. However, we believe that it is beneficial to combine these two types of public gun violence involving random/symbolic victims into a single public mass shooting concept differentiated by outcomes. This will not only strengthen the rigor of empirical research, but also reduce public confusion. Currently, the mass media and general public are familiar with the phrases “public mass shooting” and “active shooting”, and understand both to be incidents of public, predatory gun violence committed by a highly motivated offender. We believe our definition, with its careful distinction between foiled, failed, attempted, and completed outcomes, could address some of the “mass confusion” (Fox & Levin, 2022) regarding public mass shootings.
Critics may argue that our proposal for an intent-focused, no minimum casualty count definition could contribute to journalistic abuse and further public confusion or concern. For comparison, after high-profile public mass shootings, media outlets often cite the number of mass shootings in America using the Gun Violence Archive and Mass Shooting Tracker data – which includes all mass shootings (i.e., felony and family), not just public mass shootings (Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2019). The media thereby conflates all mass shootings with public mass shootings in the public consciousness. We do not want a consequence of this proposed public mass shooting definition to be the media’s inflation of the problem, given the increased number of incidents included in future research and datasets using this definition. To this end, we stress the importance of researchers using the completed public mass shooting terminology when referencing traditionally considered incidents - involving four or more fatalities – in research and during media interviews. In other words, like the usage of public mass shootings - which has recently become more popular in media usage - we are attempting to also incorporate completed public mass shootings into popular consciousness, to address public confusion and concerns.
Edit: I should add I have no beef with the GVA, and I don’t really think the flack it gets in this thread is warranted, but in this context the distinction I think can help. This is by no means GVA’s fault, terms evolve.
The precise inclusion criteria are disputed, and there is no broadly accepted definition. Only shootings that have Wikipedia articles of their own are included in this list.
Yeah, no. Not really. It’s useful, but it’s a much smaller subset. This is all notable mass shootings, not all mass shootings. As the article later goes on to describe, the definition is in contention. There are many different definitions that may include far fewer or far more events, just because of the nature of it it can’t be perfect.
And yet when you track crime, hopefully you have the intent of using that to prevent and deter future crimes, and if you end up treating a school shooting like a bar fight or vice versa, you’re not gonna get the results you want. The victims conditions are not the reason for crime statistics, I doubt it matters much what the victims were thinking when it comes to preventing future perps.
Yea, that is a much better representation. These big made up numbers they share are just designed to make people fearful, and underestimate how safe we actually are.
Sure, but it’s really difficult, if not impossible, to define that in objective terms. A shooting involving 4 or more people is easy to collect all the data on. Trying to search for all shootings where someone showed up to an event with the intent to kill many people isn’t really objective or trackable.
Maybe filter out those where both sides are armed, or only count mass shootings when the aggressor went in expecting the victims to not be armed.
The way this is presented gives the impression crime rates, not just mass shootings are way up. Even though it doesn’t specifically say that it’s misleading.
So a spree killer in a mall who is stopped by an armed person after killing 10 people shouldn’t count as a mass shooting?
Under my suggestion that would count as a mass shooting. Most malls have do not carry signs at the entrances, so the spree killer expects them to not be armed.
The definition is evolving, for the better in my opinion. The below paper describes some thoughts in the realm which seek to develop a more inclusive definition.
Mass outcome or mass intent? A proposal for an intent-focused, no-minimum casualty count definition of public mass shooting incidents
https://jmvr.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/A-Proposal-for-an-Intent-Focused-No-Minimum-Casualty-Count-Definition-of-Public-Mass-Shooting-Incidents-Greene-Colozzi-Silva.pdf
Edit: I should add I have no beef with the GVA, and I don’t really think the flack it gets in this thread is warranted, but in this context the distinction I think can help. This is by no means GVA’s fault, terms evolve.
Wikipedia seems to do OK:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
Yeah, no. Not really. It’s useful, but it’s a much smaller subset. This is all notable mass shootings, not all mass shootings. As the article later goes on to describe, the definition is in contention. There are many different definitions that may include far fewer or far more events, just because of the nature of it it can’t be perfect.
For me, I would define a mass shooting as four or more people shot, not counting the perpetrator, where the shooting itself was the objective.
Not a robbery gone bad, not a drug crime, not a gang fight, or a bar fight.
Someone went to a location with the sole intent of shooting as many people as possible.
I doubt the people caught in the crossfire of a bar fight care that the angry idiots shooting toward them are drunk instead of depressed.
And yet when you track crime, hopefully you have the intent of using that to prevent and deter future crimes, and if you end up treating a school shooting like a bar fight or vice versa, you’re not gonna get the results you want. The victims conditions are not the reason for crime statistics, I doubt it matters much what the victims were thinking when it comes to preventing future perps.
Most people don’t give a fuck about your definition.
I’d wager most people hear “mass shooting” and think it’s some guy at a school or a mall with an AR-15 and that’s absolutely not what’s happening.
That’s a pretty big and unsubstantiated assumption, though?
One good unsubstantiated assumption deserves another. :)
That’s a pretty big and unsubstantiated assumption, though?
I don’t give a fuck what you’d wager?
Because someone out there is trying desperately to manipulate public opinion. I’m encouraging you to see what they’re doing here.
I see you trying to downplay mass shootings in every fuckin thread about them I see on here and it’s gettin real tiring reading your dumbass comments.
Real good definition there. /s
Yea, that is a much better representation. These big made up numbers they share are just designed to make people fearful, and underestimate how safe we actually are.
From the Wikipedia article: