Interestingly, the DOJ version also causes mass killings that made minimal firearm involvement to be on the list.
It’s why the 7th deadliest “school shooting” was in the mid-18th century, and only one person was actually shot, with the rest killed by melee weapons.
It’s important in the sense that if it’s “just gang shit” then people think it’s less random, and so they have some agency to avoid it, which makes it less scary. They’re also not in social groups even close to gangs, so it’s not something that would ever happen to them.
That may be true based on stats which can always be manipulated. But it sure doesn’t feel safer. There was a time when you had no fear riding the subway. Now you are taking your life in your hands just standing on the platform
Just because it’s common doesn’t mean it would be categorised or described differently. A mass shooting is a mass shooting, no matter how often it happens.
Wait what’s happened in New York?
10 shot outside of a club in queens, ages 16-20
https://nypost.com/2025/01/02/us-news/at-least-10-wounded-in-mass-shooting-outside-queens-nightclub-sources/
This sounds more like gang shit
A group of four men fired at least 30 gunshots into a crowd that gathered near the Amazura nightclub
It doesnt matter the reason, its still a mass shooting.
I guess, the term mass shooting just makes me think of one dude going off the rails.
The fact that we need subgenres for this shit is disgusting either way.
I still think your distinction is important. They are both tragedies of course, but it’s important to know and understand the cause.
The majority accepted is 4 or more injured or killed, not including the shooter (gun violence archive).
The DOJ version is 4 or more killed, which is just the mass murder definition with a shooter, leaving out a lot of incidents.
In either case though, the motive is irrelevant because its not going to be known at the time.
Interestingly, the DOJ version also causes mass killings that made minimal firearm involvement to be on the list.
It’s why the 7th deadliest “school shooting” was in the mid-18th century, and only one person was actually shot, with the rest killed by melee weapons.
I would just refer to people who “go postal” as rampage killers. Spree killer and mass shooter already have their own definitions after all.
It’s important in the sense that if it’s “just gang shit” then people think it’s less random, and so they have some agency to avoid it, which makes it less scary. They’re also not in social groups even close to gangs, so it’s not something that would ever happen to them.
It doesnt make a difference for the definition of a mass shooting (really any of them, there are multiple definitions).
'Merica!
We’ve normalized mass shootings.
Mass shooting? Sounds like a normal Wednesday.
NYC has the lowest crime rate of any US major city by a lot.
That may be true based on stats which can always be manipulated. But it sure doesn’t feel safer. There was a time when you had no fear riding the subway. Now you are taking your life in your hands just standing on the platform
NYC used to be much more dangerous. Really goes to show how mislead we can be by emotions that you feel it’s only dangeeous now
You are not old enough to remember how peaceful and clean the city was during the 16 years of Guiliani and Bloomberg
Oh, yes. The “stop and frisk” era.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
downvotes verify that many are too young to remember
Was that before or after Bernie Goetz decided to murder people and then he got away with it? Because I’m not sure everyone felt safer after that.
Just because it’s common doesn’t mean it would be categorised or described differently. A mass shooting is a mass shooting, no matter how often it happens.