Mass killings in USA. (1 Viewer)

[ColinEssex]

The BBC news reported today on another mass shooting in Alabama. Four killed and several wounded. The report stated that there had been over 400 mass shootings in the USA this year.
I wondered what the criteria is that constitutes a mass shooting, as opposed to the common daily killing of one or two people.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Pardon my cynical response, but probably it becomes a "mass killing" when the event conforms to the liberal media's idea of how to further their "need for gun control" agenda. It does NOT become a "mass killing" - or a widely used headline - if the incident includes a legally armed citizen who stopped the shooter. It is the presence of the latter - a legally armed citizen - that immediately acts as a shut-off valve for the media frenzy.

 

[ColinEssex]

Pardon my cynical response, but probably it becomes a "mass killing" when the event conforms to the liberal media's idea of how to further their "need for gun control" agenda. It does NOT become a "mass killing" - or a widely used headline - if the incident includes a legally armed citizen who stopped the shooter. It is the presence of the latter - a legally armed citizen - that immediately acts as a shut-off valve for the media frenzy.

I'm afraid I don't know anything about the contents of your reply.
On the UK news they just refer to a mass killing or mass shooting, how many killed or injured etc. I did read somewhere that if 4 or more people are murdered then it is a mass killing. Less than 4 killed is just routine and doesn't warrant airtime.
I just wondered if that was true in the USA.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm afraid I don't know anything about the contents of your reply

Col, you have participated in politically oriented discussions on this forum before and know FULL WELL that the USA is in the midst of an ideological turmoil that includes guns. I'm afraid that YOUR response was an example of goading. STOP IT. You know exactly what I said. The use of "mass killing" has become politicized depending on how the killing ended. Your news media are no better than USA news media in selectively emphasizing "news" based on how it fits in with their socialist agenda.

 

[ColinEssex]

Delete the thread then if you don't like it. I couldn't care what you do.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

No, Col, I'm trying hard to not be heavy-handed. This is not a moderator issue so much as it is recognizing you yanking the chain. You and I have had discussions on this topic in the past. Other members of the forum have also discussed this and you participated. I'm simply pointing out that you already knew the answer regarding newspapers and their selectivity in what to emphasize. But you felt the need to jab in the needle just a tad.

 

[MarkK]

@The_Doc_Man, why participate on this thread? No one is forcing you. Col yanks chain. It is what he does. So why keep exposing chain for him to yank? How is your pain here not totally self-inflicted?

 

[MarkK]

It's like it's raining outside, and you go outside without a hat, and then get pissed off at the rain because your hair got wet.
Like, put a hat on--problem solved.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It's like it's raining outside, and you go outside without a hat, and then get pissed off at the rain because your hair got wet.
Like, put a hat on--problem solved.

If I were wearing the moderator hat, I would probably do nothing. But I take off that hat sometimes when dealing with Col. And when he then more or less agrees I could take the post down if I wanted, perhaps I've taken the fun out of his interaction. Basically, he wants USA folks to explain themselves to him, but doesn't care to be under the microscope himself.

 

[ColinEssex]

Basically, he wants USA folks to explain themselves to him, but doesn't care to be under the microscope himself.

Totally wrong. I'm not interested in gun control or Liberal this or republican or democrat that. Its just a simple question. If that is too difficult to understand then forget it. Don't turn every thread into a political thing like Pat does.

Look, if you have a bad storm and the wind reaches in excess of x mph, its classed as a hurricane. I just was interested if there was a minimum number for a mass killing, being the report on the news that there has been over 400 mass killings in the USA this year, the latest in alabama last weekend. In the UK I believe its 4 deaths, I may be wrong.
Col

 

[GaP42]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting
Various definitions.

 

[Cotswold]

I would have thought that multiple would be more apt but I suppose today it comes down to which word gets the most clicks.

 

[Isaac]

The BBC news reported today on another mass shooting in Alabama. Four killed and several wounded. The report stated that there had been over 400 mass shootings in the USA this year.
I wondered what the criteria is that constitutes a mass shooting, as opposed to the common daily killing of one or two people.
Col

probably each person who uses the word 'mass' has their own opinion on it

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Exactly right, @Cotswold - the event is tagged by the media based on their estimation of click-bait value.

The 2nd sentence in the Wikipedia article referenced by @GaP42 makes it clear:

"There is no widely accepted definition, and different organizations tracking such incidents use different criteria."

Therefore, to answer your direct question, Col, a "mass shooting" is arbitrarily declared/decided by the organizations that report it.

 

[AccessBlaster]

If you saw four ants crawling across your counter would the word "MASS" come to mind? Probably not. MASS to me would be their entire colony.

It's a red meat description designed to get a certain political reaction.

Col knows this and uses it effectively.