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.
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).