What is the Actual Definition of “Mass Shooting”?

For everyone out there scrambling to feign virtue and demand that guns be outlawed, do any of you know what the term “mass shooting” actually means?

Well, believe it or not, but there is no standard definition for “mass shooting”! How can that be you ask? Well the quick and dirty of it is that the term “mass shooting” is really a play on words, a way to dramatize the term “mass murder” or “mass killing”.

Some say it is when 3 or more people are shot in close proximity and within a short period of time, there is no standard for injuries or death, some would refer to this also as assault or man slaughter.

The term “mass shooting” is a political term used to incite fear and push political agendas, plain and simple.

If we’re going to discuss something, let’s understand what we are attempting to discuss, rather than simply use buzzwords and keywords to appear relevant.

So, I look forward to your comments and counters. Just keep this in mind for contrast, how many people were killed by cops this year? How many people were killed during military operations this year? How many people were killed due to medical malpractice this year? How many people were killed driving to work this year? How many people were killed by food poisoning this year? How many people were killed by choking on food this year? How many people were stabbed or beaten to death this year?

You see, people die, it’s those of us who remain, who are the ones that deal with the loss. Death is part of life and no amount of legislation will ever stop murder or mayhem.

Oh, and the U.S. is probably one of the safest nations in the entire world. If the U.S. was really as bad as all of the politicians and everyone else likes to say, then I hardly doubt that millions of illegals would be trying to get in.


100 thoughts on “What is the Actual Definition of “Mass Shooting”?

  1. What can I say that I haven’t already said?
    I’d love for all the media to run ONLY good news for one freakin day. There are plenty of stories out there of people helping people, good things happening unexpectedly…
    That won’t sell ads though, will it?

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Nope, sex and controversy sells! Appeal to the lowest common denominators, the keystone of any successful industry.

  2. Umm… “mass murder” and “mass killing” would not be entirely accurate if not all the human targets were indeed killed or murdered but injured. Seems to me “mass shooting” is an entirely accurate description. I know you worship the Second Amendment more than the rest of the Constitution, but just removing the word “shooter” to somehow deflect any suggestion of a gun being involved won’t change a thing in the end. Maybe pick something substantial to discuss.. like why is patriotism and gun ownership synonymous to Conservatives?

      1. A standard for “mass shooting”? Not that I am aware of. Someone can kill ten people in a home and it’s not a “mass shooting”, although for that venue “mass murder” might work just fine. It’s a descriptive that attempts to define the nature/venue/random human toll of the event. It’s certainly not a precise legal term. I think for statistical data collection it’s defined more or less as a public shooting where the human targeted victims (above four, from what I’ve seen) are random to the point where it could represent a shooter’s personal bias, or not.
        Somehow I don’t think any of that is what you are looking for.

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          Well, if we are going to so easily toss around a term, I think there should be a standardized definition to begin with. If the term has not been standardized, then, what’s the point?

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Hmmm Doug, it seems this post was substantial enough to spark your interests. Maybe take a note of this blog, it might help you to reach a broader audience.

          1. Why do I need to be moderated? More to the point… I find Conservative blogs tend to moderate in order to allow only “pure” thought.. or for fear of alternative opinions. So why moderate at all?

              1. How did the risk of people putting your personal information “out there” ever become that risk?
                Just makes posting a little more… cumbersome . You see, if I make a reply in here it’s sits until you moderate it.. but I am never notified of any reply you may make even though I follow. For example, I never got an email notification of your reply here… “So a random doesn’t put my personal information out there.” although I did get the “like” notification I generally ignore those on blogs anyway.. and if someone replies I will get the reply notification. On your blog if a “like” notification shows up in my email then I have to go back into your blog to see it.. if you posted anything at all.

                    1. bottomlesscoffee007

                      So, is it the murder that counts or the instrument that was used by the murderer? Wait, maybe murder should be made illegal!

                    2. IK, you support guns. I get it. I’m not a gun enthusiast, yet I know they serve a purpose if used correctly.
                      But because of the many bad apples who use this instrument for the wrong person- to kill people for their insecurities because they’re feeling some type of way, then laws have to be established.

                    3. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Do you think laws will stop murder? What laws actually work? Do drug laws work? What law, has yet to curb any behavior?

                    4. bottomlesscoffee007

                      How did the “super predator” law work out? What about the “war on drugs”? Maybe the Global War on Terror? Do you just want a platitude Scherezade?


                      So, are there no laws against murder already?

                    5. bottomlesscoffee007

                      If guns were the problem, then gun free zones would be the safest places to seek refuge, schools and college campuses would be safe as well. If guns are the problem, then why are prisons so dangerous?

                    6. Um, if college campuses and schools were safe then it wouldn’t be shootings in those places.

                      Prisons are dangerous because there filled with dangerous people( true criminals and corrupt adminstration).There are truly innocents in those walls too who become victim to the toxic behavior of that community.

                    7. bottomlesscoffee007

                      So the prisoners who are decent, have no way to protect themselves? Schools have no way to ensure that a murderer doesn’t breech their facility? College campuses are inept at protecting their customers? So, in all of these instances, what is the defining characteristic?

                    8. Crazy people in prison with access to guns? That’s the prison system, period; they been in establishment
                      If a riot went down, it would be snatch and grab for anything-guns wrestled away from guards

                    9. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Crazy people! So, people in prison only are murdered when another inmate snatches a gun away from a guard? Have you ever heard of a “shank”? People are sometimes raped to death as well, but since rape is already illegal, why does rape still occur?

                    10. bottomlesscoffee007

                      How did Timothy McVeigh blow up the building in Oklahoma City? Did the 9/11 highjackers use guns to take over the planes? What about someone who is texting and driving? What about dogs? Do people ever use dogs to maim and kill?

                    11. crazy people with access to whatever they use as a weapon…
                      texters while driving aren’t crazy they’re either insensitive, self absorbed, and/or too smart for their own good

                    12. bottomlesscoffee007

                      So, what will arbitrarily banning guns or certain guns or features or accessories even do then?

                      Have you ever taken a self defense class Scherezade? From what I gather, they preach that anything and everything is a weapon and should be used as such to stop the attack and incapacitate the assaulter.

                    13. Never took a self defense class, but I agree with that premise
                      I watched a gun video last night on FB, and the fact that civilians were shooting assault rifles and other big guns for fun was disturbing to me; I think flaunting the fantasy of shooting off rifles and other assault rifles for fun is what adds to the fantasy for these sick individuals who decide to take out a school or church or Walmart

                    14. bottomlesscoffee007

                      I think that’s partly the problem. Regular people attempting to understand the insane. A regular person will never be able to reason with a truly crazy person. So, instead, we persecute one another, in frustration.

                    15. bottomlesscoffee007

                      But when a person isn’t paying attention while driving a few tons of steel at speed, they still manage to kill people. So, I fail to see how murder is different based on instrument.

                    16. I definitely did NOT say that… I said
                      “Murder is murder. It could’ve been a shoe, and if it was used a means to kill someone then the act is murder, the instrument is the murder weapon.”

  3. Marinate on this for a while. Each year most of the Bill of Rights results in death for someone. How can that be? Simple… it’s life. We create laws to serve the many… not the individual, although it’s the individual we are making laws for. Just like the old dead Vulcan said.. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. We’ve assigned the Bill of Rights as our guarantee of freedom yet we still pay a price to maintain that freedom.. but not just from other countries/dictators that want to destroy our way of life but the random extremes of everyday life.
    Yes, some of The Ten are a stretch to assign a victim just as others cause death daily. Pick any… and you can imagine a twist where that freedom could end up killing someone.
    Free speech? You say the wrong thing to someone, they get pissed off at what you said and decide to kill you. You exercising free speech did that. The Second Amendment is pretty obvious. To have the freedom to own a gun the gun will be used to kill others (in effect, robbing a victim of their freedom to live).
    Amendment 6, the right to a speedy trial… sometimes has convicted the innocent person to death.
    Personally I think it’s very fair for all Americans to understand that what’s good for the many does not assure fairness for all… yet it’s the best we have.. as long as the price we keep paying is worth it.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      The idea that the bill of rights is for the individual, it is meant to protect the minority against the majority, seems to escape you Doug. If the bill of rights was for the majority, then why the need for the 1st Amendment? Why the need to protect unpopular speech? Why the need to protect unpopular religion?

      How does the Bill of Rights result in death? Are you suggesting that the Bill of Rights kills people? That’s completely asinine Doug.

      Did people die and were people murdered prior to the Bill of Rights? Do people die or are people killed in countries that do not have the Bill of Rights?

      You don’t seem like a guy who has ever been in a fight Doug. Tell me, can a person defend themselves from insurmountable odds, armed? Can a person hold off the government, unarmed?

    2. You Stated — “We create laws to serve the many… not the individual, although it’s the individual we are making laws for. ”

      My Response — It’s the opposite. Laws are created to restrict the many and we make them for those who requested them (elected officials) who are in fact in office via the majority (voters).

      1. Of course. But who wants to remove it? Oh, yes.. I know the universal unfounded chant among gun-loving Conservatives (and the fear-mongering NRA) is that “Liberals want to take our guns” I am unfamiliar with any universal Liberal chant “Let’s dump the Second Amendment.”

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          Not just liberals Doug, Ronald Reagan, Trump and Lindsey Graham, Nixon, FDR, Clinton, LBJ, all of these presidents enacted gun control that failed to curb any violence. It would seem that you are all about gun control as well. The party is insignificant, it’s the act that counts.

          How’s about this, before you or anyone for that matter demands gun control, how about you first. You turn in your arms first and then we can see who fares better.

          The 2A is abolishment takes place like erosion. A little bit at a time. Ever since the inception of the NFA, back in 1934, the 2A has been hacked apart.

          I wonder where you stand on the 1A? You come across like an elitist, tell me, what are your rules for everyone else to abide by?

          1. The 2A is nowhere close to being “hacked apart”. In fact, the Scalia SCOTUS gave it a good support push back 20-something years ago. Your fear is NRA-inspired nonsense to get you worked up. 2A is going nowhere. I personally do not agree with the SCOTUS interpretation but it is the law of the land and I follow the law. By the way, those presidents you cited… most did not get their “gun control” way through Congress. Even the first assault rifle ban between 1994 and 2004 was a sunset rule that made that expire when it did.
            If you’re assigning me as some “elitist” means I tend to look at the greater picture than emotional bias, yep.. I guess I am. But I visit Conservative blogs not in some chest-thumping attempt to make converts to my way of thinking but rather to understand the mindset of opposing positions to determine their origins because in that is usually the road to a solution.

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              Why do you keep on referring to the NRA? The NRA is part of the problem. Doug, please know or at least have a basic understanding of the history of gun legislation and 2A restrictions, before attempting to engage in discussions concerning the rights of the American people.

          1. Slavery is inherently part of human existence. History proves that. So is killing each other. History proves that as well. If we do not like it then we must be vigilant to keep it from happening.. through laws and cultural expression. I can philosophize all day long on the traits of man, good and bad.. like stereotyping. If you are looking for a concise answer.. I abhor enslavement of anyone and have all my life. Whether it is “justified” or not depends which side of the fence you are on.. master or slave. For me, I see no conceivable justification for it at all.
            Oh.. wait… we have the prison system. Our society enslaves all those who have been convicted of breaking the law. There’s some “justification” for you.

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              So, you make excuses for slavery then Doug. Does that make it right or just?

              How does a person break the law? How is law decided? How is justice doled out?

              If you don’t wish to philosophize, then how do you ponder law and life?

              1. Where did I make excuses for slavery? What exactly is the answer you are looking for from me? Honestly, sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder here.
                My “philosophizing” remark was meant for doing that in here.. not in general. If most people took the time to ponder and use critical thinking rather than be impulsive and follow the cadence of others, we’d be a lot better off.

  4. It’s the inherent trait of man to not be confined; to reach out to satisfy curiosity; explore; question the world around; the perseverance of knowledge to improve existence. Man is born to not be confined, enslaved, or imprisoned… yet man does that to himself in many different ways. Breakouts are inevitable, painful, inevitable… simply because we are human. We exist in the way nature has programmed us with the traits we have. There… that’s being philosophical.
    Again.. our prison system for punishment and/or rehabilitation is a perfect example of socially justified enslavement.. don’t ya think?

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Hmmm, in that sense then, it would seem that justice is unjust and that slavery is unjust as well. Tell me Doug, what’s the acceptable margin for error when it comes to wrongful convictions?

  5. You Stated — “Death is part of life and no amount of legislation will ever stop murder or mayhem.”

    My Response — So are you saying we don’t need laws against murder?

    You Stated — “Well the quick and dirty of it is that the term “mass shooting” is really a play on words, a way to dramatize the term “mass murder” or “mass killing”.”

    My Response — Are you saying that “Mass Murder” is not dramatic on it’s own? “Mass Murder”, to me, seems more diabolical and dramatic than “Mass Shooting”. I also never thought of “Mass Shooting” as political until you mentioned it in your post, I thought it was just a descriptor to indicate type of attack.

    I’m curious, do you think that the current use of the word “Terrorist” by people in office is a dramatic play on words? Are they simply killers or mass murderers? Should we refer to the 911 attack as a mass murder event and leave off the word terrorist from your perspective?

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      The term Mass shooting is not standardized. The term is used for political purposes, to garner support for more gun control.

      Terrorism is a defined term.

      1. You Stated — “to garner support for more gun control.”

        My Response — I also find this part to be a bit odd. I kind of remember when they first used the term and over the many years since there has never actually been more gone control… if anything more guns have been sold.

        It seems to me that the term scares people into buying more guns to feel safe.

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          It’s been the mantra since they disarmed the Indians. Gun control, mass shootings and public safety have been the speaking points since 1933. The inception of the National Firearms Act in 1934, gun control has yet to work.

          1. You Stated — “It’s been the mantra since they disarmed the Indians. ”

            My Response — Are you saying that if American Indians had guns they would still own America?

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              What I’m saying is, that if the Indians didn’t voluntarily throw down their arms, then they wouldn’t have been decimated so easily.

              Did the Indians own America? How did the tribes like the Cherokee get so large?

              1. You Stated — “What I’m saying is, that if the Indians didn’t voluntarily throw down their arms, then they wouldn’t have been decimated so easily.”

                My Response — So then you are saying if they still had the guns they would have still been decimated but just not as easily… how is this a good point for having guns?

                  1. You Stated — “Is that seriously a question?”

                    My Response — If you don’t want to answer the question then just ignore it, some conversations are to touchy a topic. I was just curious about your logic.

                    1. You Stated — “How hard is it to quell dissent if your opposition is armed?”

                      My Response — Not hard at all. Ask the American Indians, they were armed and warriors and they were nearly wiped out.

                      Also, America is one of the most well armerd countries on earth and they still passed the Patriot Act without so much as a frown from the NRA.

                      I would say the more well armed sheep are the easier it is to eat them because they feel safe.

                    2. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Perhaps. The NRA is hardly a standard bearer. Referencing them would be the same as referring to the FDA for nutrition information.

                      Before the trail of tears and wounded knee, the government and the Indians had a treaty. Yet, just like Poland and the USSR had a treaty with Hitler, when it comes down to dollars and cents, treaties are written on paper, just like our laws and the constitution. In the end, everything burns.

                    3. You Stated — “In the end, everything burns.”

                      My Response — I guess the part I find confusing about this type of discussion is the contradictions.

                      In one sentence you seem to be saying we need to protect something for reason “A” but then at some point you say something like “In the end, everything burns.”

                      I’m not sure why you are worried about protecting guns if you think it’s all going to burn in the end.

                      I’m not against guns since I don’t think it matters if people have them or not but I am sometimes curious about the logic used in the discussion.

                      At any rate I don’t want to keep you locked in on this so I’m ok with dropping it.

                    4. You Stated — “Then, why not allow the sheep to remained armed then?”

                      My Response — I see no reason to disarm sheep but don’t conflate that with American Indians being disarmed has any logical value in a debate on gun protection wehen we both know it wouldn’t have made a diffrence.

                      I’m asking for a better argument. I think the world needs better arguments.

  6. I always thought the term “mass shooting” meant when a gunman or a group of people shot and killed several people, numbers varying depending on the place it occurred and the number of people there at the time of occurrence.

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          Ha, well, I just think that if we are going to use a term, we should understand it’s origin and what it means exactly.

          1. Like there are certain terms and words that nowadays has been twisted and taken out of context to mean something else while it meant something different years ago.

                1. bottomlesscoffee007

                  If we cannot come to an agreement on what is and what is not a continent, then what about everything else we discuss? Just a question, not a statement.

                  What is a mass shooting?

                  1. Continents are definitely geographical. That’s a definite. But I see your point. If all we discuss is just our opinions and beliefs, and not definite fact, then what are we discussing?
                    My OPINION (remember, just an opinion, and could be wrong) is that mass shootings are stuff like the Lindt Café, Sandy Hook, etc., etc. I don’t see how the term could be applied elsewhere.

Please Like This Post, Follow and Comment to Aid in the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.