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?
My position is that when the average person hears the phrase "mass shooting", the scenario that comes to mind is a shooter, going to a public space, with the intent of killing and injuring as many people as possible.
They don't percieve it as extensions of other crimes that weren't planned or concieved as mass shootings. Bar fights, domestic violence, gang shootings, etc. etc.
The Gun Violence Archive fails to make that distinction because they have an agenda, one which the mass media perpetuates unquestioningly.
Alright, thanks. What I'm wondering is why you believe this is the average person's idea of a mass shooting. Is this based on your gut feeling, or is there any kind of evidence you can point me toward? Like I said, it just doesn't match my personal experience, that's the only reason I ask.
Simple, you watch the reactions... "OMG! That could have been me!" Yes, in an actual mass shooting, it very well could have. Other kinds of crimes? Not so much.
People aren't worried about getting shot in a barfight or a robbery because they know those are rare, they ARE worried about the random shooter events which they are made to believe happen more often than they actually do.
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.
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?
My position is that when the average person hears the phrase "mass shooting", the scenario that comes to mind is a shooter, going to a public space, with the intent of killing and injuring as many people as possible.
They don't percieve it as extensions of other crimes that weren't planned or concieved as mass shootings. Bar fights, domestic violence, gang shootings, etc. etc.
The Gun Violence Archive fails to make that distinction because they have an agenda, one which the mass media perpetuates unquestioningly.
Alright, thanks. What I'm wondering is why you believe this is the average person's idea of a mass shooting. Is this based on your gut feeling, or is there any kind of evidence you can point me toward? Like I said, it just doesn't match my personal experience, that's the only reason I ask.
Simple, you watch the reactions... "OMG! That could have been me!" Yes, in an actual mass shooting, it very well could have. Other kinds of crimes? Not so much.
People aren't worried about getting shot in a barfight or a robbery because they know those are rare, they ARE worried about the random shooter events which they are made to believe happen more often than they actually do.
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.