Some, such as the Gun Violence Archive, include events in which multiple people are shot regardless of number of deaths, and so report much higher figures.
This carries a fun implication: let’s deflate the number of mass shooting by only including the deaths and not how many people are actually shot (and perhaps saved by emergency room personnel).
It also ignores any lingering effects the survivors might suffer, whether physically or mentally. Just because you’re alive doesn’t mean you are whole.
It also encourages confusion that each mass shooting is someone trying to kill as many people as possible in a public place, when that overwhelmingly isn’t actually true.
Mass shooting, not mass killing. I’d even want to know about instances of multiple, unrelated targets. If we get a string of shooters with terrible aim and nobody is actually hurt I don’t consider that an improvement of our epidemic.
That last part is important, because our emergency responders have gotten very good at saving lives (sadly, they’ve had to). People will point to deaths as the only relevant stat–and it’s amazing that isn’t enough for some people–but it’s a huge burden and cost for healthcare.
“If I just focus on rhetoric, all the rampant gun violence goes away! I mean, no, there is no gun violence. Regardless, everything is fine, you just have to pretend. Guns have nothing to do with gun violence, also war is peace, and I am sane in the head. I’m sure people will buy this if I just repeat it a lot.”
This carries a fun implication: let’s deflate the number of mass shooting by only including the deaths and not how many people are actually shot (and perhaps saved by emergency room personnel).
It also misses the damage done by witnessing that violence and being shot at and losing loved ones to gun violence.
It also ignores any lingering effects the survivors might suffer, whether physically or mentally. Just because you’re alive doesn’t mean you are whole.
Or economically, given the absurd costs of medical attention in the USA.
It also encourages confusion that each mass shooting is someone trying to kill as many people as possible in a public place, when that overwhelmingly isn’t actually true.
The new definition is mostly gang violence now, but that’s not what any of us think of when we see or hear “mass shooting”.
It’s a dog whistle for justifying the gun violence as only being between black people and hispanics, as if that makes it okay.
I mean it seems like a change to inflate the numbers, but shifting it to minorities could prolly keep the right quiet.
Mass shooting, not mass killing. I’d even want to know about instances of multiple, unrelated targets. If we get a string of shooters with terrible aim and nobody is actually hurt I don’t consider that an improvement of our epidemic.
That last part is important, because our emergency responders have gotten very good at saving lives (sadly, they’ve had to). People will point to deaths as the only relevant stat–and it’s amazing that isn’t enough for some people–but it’s a huge burden and cost for healthcare.
I can already hear the wing conspiracy theories about how liberal doctors are letting mass shooting victims die in order to bolster the numbers.
Kind of like the conspiracies they’d throw around about the numbers of cases and deaths related to Covid.
Words have meanings and require definition.
Gun Violence Archive has about the most liberal definition, Mother Jones about the most conservative. (I can’t believe I used Mother Jones and conservative in the same sentence.)
Fact is, when we hear “mass shooting”, we’re thinking of the Mother Jones definition.
“If I just focus on rhetoric, all the rampant gun violence goes away! I mean, no, there is no gun violence. Regardless, everything is fine, you just have to pretend. Guns have nothing to do with gun violence, also war is peace, and I am sane in the head. I’m sure people will buy this if I just repeat it a lot.”