• @jordanlundM
    link
    English
    11 year ago

    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.

    • kase
      link
      English
      21 year ago

      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.

      • @jordanlundM
        link
        English
        -1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Definition comes from a position of rationality and not wanting to scare people. :)

        • kase
          link
          English
          31 year ago

          I’m confused. Is your position that yours is the most generally-held definition, or that it should be?

          • @jordanlundM
            link
            English
            11 year ago

            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.

            • kase
              link
              English
              21 year ago

              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.

              • @jordanlundM
                link
                English
                -11 year ago

                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.

    • SeaJ
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • @jordanlundM
        link
        English
        01 year ago

        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.