Talk:List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Discussion

Braxton C. Womack please discuss politely your concerns.Tomcaly (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, as I previously explained twice in my edit summaries, we do not need to list two of the same definitions, that is why the USA Today definition has the mention of being the same as the FBI's. Also, you're using misleading edit summaries, which is not allowed, see Help:Edit summaries. – Braxton C. Womack^{talk to me!} 05:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Braxton C. Womack thank you for engaging in a civil discussion.

Your argument seems to not have any merit. You are claiming that the two very different sources the FBI law enforcement and USA Today a reliable media source are some how redundant because they list the same criteria.

Yet these three sources list the exact same criteria and are similar in nature. I also believe no one would judge these sources to be more reliable than the FBI or USA Today or even the openly opinionated Mother Jone. Two are self published and one is a advocacy group.

• Mass Shooting Tracker: 4+ shot in one incident, at one location, at roughly the same time.[4]
• Gun Violence Archive: 4+ shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time.[5]
• Vox: 4+ shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time.[9]

You also removed how I organized them by there criteria with no explanation.

As to the rewording you reverted to, it was to closely phrased to the source. It is also misleading as most source agree it is 4 or the very least 3 killings not including the shooter. The only rebuttal to this presented is all the same criteria of just 4 shot in one incident at roughly the same time, as presented above.

As to the edit summaries I most certainly only included content that is supported by the sources. Please do not pass judgments in edit summaries, i believe that is frowned upon. Cheers. 174.159.227.3 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The FBI's definition is included in the USA Today article, which is a reliable source. I checked in an earlier revision and noticed you removed the Mass Shooting Tracker definition, which is what we use to list these shootings, plus, you removed the Gun Violence Archive definition, which is also a dependable source to list these incidents. The reason I changed the organization of the criteria list, is because the sources that I just mentioned are what we use to track these mass shootings, and the organization is closely related to the topic of this article, whereas the other sources listed are news and magazine publications. The precise inclusion criteria is disputed, meaning there are many definitions to a mass shooting; some sources will say 3+ and others will say 4+, as it states in the second source, "There is no broadly agreed-to, specific conceptualization of this issue, so this report uses its own definition for public mass shootings." We also want to keep a neutral point of view here, per WP:NPOV, that is why including "The U.S. law enforcement and most media inclusion criteria deems that 4 killings not including the shooter.", could be considered false. – Braxton C. Womack^{talk to me!} 17:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

As this article is about crimes in the U.S., law enforcement is the most significant source. Then published mainstream media. Wikipedia WP:RS does not deem self published websites and avdvocacy groups as reliable nor neutral. ...reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable... ...reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable...

Setting all that aside lets address one issue at a time. Your comment "we do not need to list two of the same definitions". Mass Shooting, Gun Violence Archive, Vox all list the exact same definition, 4+ shot in one incident same place same time. They are also very similar sources in nature as well.

The FBI is the most significant source in a article on crimes in the U.S., it is also very significantly different in nature than all the other source. The two reliable mainstream media sources USA Today, and The Washington Post (that state the same exact criteria as the FBI) could be considered redundant by your thinking.

Braxton C. Womack please address this issue first.107.26.42.169 (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

As I made clear in the main mass shooting list, the definitions currently listed are all different from each other. The Congressional Research service excludes terrorism and killings done with a profit motive, while no other definition does the same. Also, listing FBI as a definition as the unregistered IP did is completely inaccurate, as the FBI has never defined mass shooting (it's been brought to my attention that an ABC news article claims this, but I've yet to see a primary source). They have only defined mass killing, which includes burning, choking, etc. The FBI has never made a specific mass shooting definition. Each definition listed is distinctly different, either in number (3 excluding perp vs. 4 vs. 4 excluding perp), in lethality (shot and killed vs shot), or in nature (public, non-domestic, non-gang mass shooting vs general mass shooting vs. non-profit non-terrorism mass shooting as the Congressional study uniquely defines them as.) Ottoshade (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Organized

The way I organized the definitions the number of views was presented clearly putting all the same together. Randomly seemed to just muddy the waters. And this appears to be a POV push instead of presenting just the facts in a NPOV.

Braxton C. Womack please address this issue.107.26.42.169 (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

How about additional columns in the list?

[NB: pluralize, or un–, as necessary]

What are the (de)merits of adding columns to show known entries about the

• weapon involved,
• where the weapon was (last) purchased:
… … granularity (from state name, down to which gun shop or show, might need discussion/refinement)
• whether the shooter legally owned the weapon
• whether the shooter had prior criminal or mental health records
• pointers to the relevant gun possession laws in the shooter's state of residence

I understand that such columns might not be heavily populated, particularly in retrospect, but they may provide useful classes of additional information.

Thank you. Oded haber (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That information is simply not available in 90% of these cases, especially the ones regarding purchasing, legality of ownership, and the shooter's prior history. Not only would we only be including these in such a tiny number of cases, but the cases in which they would be included heavily skew towards mass shootings with much more media coverage than usual, extreme outliers, thus forming an inaccurate sample of information. Ottoshade (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as the information of age is included in a large majority of the articles would it be potentially beneficial to have a child column included or would it be beneficial to include it in the statistics section? Leaky.Solar (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

About this hidden note

Braxton C. Womack I just added two events to the list for the dates of July 17 and 18 and I did not see any indication of a hidden note when I did so. I might have missed it and if so please let me know. Leaky.Solar (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Leaky.Solar: Hi! Yes, the hidden note is right under the hidden "format" section, it says "Please add {{dts}} to every event." You can look back at my earlier edit revisions to see how I listed them. Happy editing! — Braxton C. Womack^{talk to me!} 18:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to me Braxton C. Womack, I think I figured it out, I do a lot of my editing for this page visually and while the note does appear with source editing it does not do so when edit visually. It just displays the table with the only additional feature being the "per WP:CALC, list below" in the intro section. Thanks again.Leaky.Solar (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

20 vs. 251

It was 20 last night and now it’s 251. We need to settle on how we’re defining the terms here. PokeHomsar (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Context is king, and relevant.

This article is missing context, per event. When the general public wants to know about mass shootings, most people do not care about gang violence, family murders, etc. (Note, emotions have no place in scientific data collection) There is a difference between a someone going out and shooting random strangers in public locations with group gatherings and targeted murders. To clarify - a gang member doing a "drive-by" intending to kill a specific person, or persons; or a person who has had a psychotic break and murders their family; or a person who is robbing/mugging a store or small group of people.

Yes, the definition is 4+ victims. However, if the same event happened to have 1 less person on scene to become a victim, the event would not qualify as a mass shooting. Likewise, an event where a person was apprehended or killed without killing or injuring more than 3 other persons is also not considered a mass shooting, regardless of how many people were present for the event.

So, this article is flawed from the perspective of context.

I pose that this article be updated to indicate what events not only reflect the 4+ victim count, but also the number of potential victims; as well as base reasoning behind the actions of the event - i.e. gang violence, domestic violence, or political / terror motivated violence. There is a difference. Political and terrorist motivated violent crimes are on the rise, from a near non-existence only a short few decades ago. The others have existed for centuries.

Additionally, citing politically biased organizations is less than beneficial to the relevance of any article on Wikipedia. This includes Mother Jones and USA Today. However, noting that these are the sources of such citations does allow the educated reader to understand that there ***may*** be a political bias present.

</2¢> 2603:9000:B605:6160:B9A3:2CF4:321:378D (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC) ~AeSix

Agreed, gang-related and family killings shouldn't be listed here (with perhaps a few possible exceptions).

Articles like this need a very clear set of inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the definitions that are currently being used have the benefit of not only being roughly similar, but also being criteria used by media and researchers (rather than some arbitrary criteria used only by Wikipedia). A major problem with your suggestion to exclude family or gang violence is that in many cases, it can't be confidently determined whether an incident was gang-related or motivated by family conflict—you will often see sources saying things like "police are investigating whether the shooting was gang-related", but nothing more concrete. Similarly, shootings involving family members are not always mutually exclusive with people who are, as you say, "going out and shooting random strangers in public locations with group gatherings and targeted murders": the 2019 Dayton shooting is a perfect example of that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

True, although the Dayton shooting also included many non-relatives, that being said I think their can be exceptions for extreme events, for instance in the 1975 Easter Sunday massacre the victims were all family members of the shooter, but due to the large number of causalities (11 in total) it is still listed in the deadliest mass shootings since it had over 10 victims.

I think your suggested criteria are far too fuzzy to implement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Citation link not available outside USA?

I haven't checked through all the links, but the one I clicked on was for the 5th of August shooting spree. The NYC one. The website is pix11.com and it returns a message suggesting that, for no apparent reason, the "content is not available in your region". An alterative source/link that is available in all (uncensored) countries would be better. --82.2.5.153 (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

How bizarre... I've replaced the source with one that should hopefully work. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2019

This entire article needs a rework as explained in the Talk section.

No normal person uses this definition of a mass shooting. No normal person would say four people shot in a bad drug deal is a mass shooting. This is insane. Wikipedia should not be used as an anti-gun propaganda source - it's a non-biased, objective platform for facts. Again - nobody would say that 2 police officers and 2 suspects shot is a "mass shooting" as one of these examples listed says.

This entire article should be based off the mother-jones database instead of the Gun Violence Archive. It's kept up to date and its definition of a mass shooting is a commonly accepted definition. Katfactz (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Per the instructions in the template, edit requests are meant for very specific requests where you provide precise wording to be changed. "Rewrite the whole article" is a discussion best suited to the talk page without an edit request, as I see you've done below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Lancaster, South Carolina shooting merge

The Lancaster, South Carolina shooting article appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON and/or lacks notability when compared to all of the other mass shootings done this year. I am proposing a merge to salvage any good info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Just as a heads up the format for this article is to give a brief description of the event and the date and location of the event, with the amount injured and killed along with the total. This event is already documented in the chart, so there's not much to merge. Leaky.Solar (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This whole article is wrong and needs a rework.

Hi. I'm a statistics expert and criminologist who has studied this issue for 20 years.

Every serious criminologist defines a mass shooting as one with random victims not related to another crime in progress. Every - single - one - of - us.

By this measure, the leading statistic in this article is WAY off. Epic propaganda proportions, off. Question the legitimacy of wikipedia for the rest of our lives, off.

Just look at the list. The most recent as of 9AM Eastern on 8/21/19 is "Four teenagers were wounded after an argument escalated during a potential party in a hotel room". Are you kidding? This is not a mass shooting. Neither was this! "Seven people were injured in a shooting at a party" Further, the title in wikipedia of the linked article is wrong.

The most common-sense definition of a mass shooting, the one that we all think of when we think of a mass shooting, is "an event where someone selects four or more people and kills them in an indiscriminate manner". Indiscriminate, meaning, no other crime in progress, not gang or domestic violence related. Random murder. This is literally what we all know to be a mass shooting. This is what's on the news - not "four shot in gang dispute". So why do we pretend there's another definition in this article?

This is a clear attempt at creating anti-gun propaganda.

" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katfactz (talk • contribs) 13:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

If everyone thought like you say they do, some actual tracking group would use your definition, or at least common sense suggests one might. Can you point to one that does, or even a single serious criminologist? Your premise that "mass shooting" is a distinct crime from some "other crime" seems seriously wonky to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Here: https://rockinst.org/issue-area/can-mass-shootings-be-stopped/ is a report offered by a group of experts which reiterates Katfactz's criticisms. They have offered an alternative definition and produced an alternative dataset. One of the authors, Jaclyn Schildkraut, is a well published expert on mass shootings: http://www.jaclynschildkraut.com/about-jaclyn/biography/ Kphawkins (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Katfactz (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Yes - motherjones has a complete list, which is using the same definition as government sources who have defined a mass shooting. Furthermore, we all know what a mass shooting is based on media coverage, do we not? Can we honestly say something like this (https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/police-investigating-shooting-in-nw-albuquerque/5490039/) is a mass shooting? Nobody can. That's ridiculous.

It is not up to you to decide the definition. I don't care if you think it is ridiculous or not. This is not the "Katfactz thinks these are mass shootings" page; it is the "all these sources say this are mass shootings" page. --Jorm (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Katfactz (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)A political organization with a stated intent to pass gun control regulations is not a "source". Want to use sources, let's use the media, as suggested. Even the source linked to the shooting doesn't call it a "mass shooting".

Katfactz (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)This article doesn't even match all of the other mass shooting articles. The Source they're using here doesn't even have data going back before 2011. Look up "mass shootings in new mexico", and show me where the two most recent "Mass shootings" on this page are. They're not there because it's a ludicrous definition with the stated intent to pass gun laws.

I rolled back the latest of serious blanking of the article's information due to lack of consensus in the talk page, it seems right now its just user Katfactz stating their opinion over and over again. The definitions used in the articles List of mass shootings in the United States and List of mass shootings in the United States in 2018 are accepted and have already gone through a large amount of discussion previously. They also mirror the definitions used in this article. The article also does not include any incidents which are gang related and highlight the widespread and serious nature of the amount of crimes. Leaky.Solar (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The facts: -Every government agency that has weighed in on mass shootings has said a mass shooting is indiscriminate in nature. -Every media organization blasts mass shootings all over the news when they meet these standards. -The overly broad standard in this article has the sole purpose of making it look like mass shootings are a larger problem than they actually are in order to pass gun control legislation. -The number here has been quoted by left wing politicians who have been fact checked with "half true" statements cautioning that this is an overly broad definition. -The other mass shooting pages did NOT echo the definitions on this page until someone changed them to include these very controversial and broad definitions -The groups who use these definitions are not recognized or peer reviewed, and have stated on their web pages that they are in fact operating under bias and trying to change laws with their data

Proposed change: -Set higher standards on this page. Do not include things like "4 guys shot in a hotel room over drugs" because that's clearly not a mass shooting. -Use the standard of there is either a wikipedia page dedicated to the shooting + 2 news articles calling it a "mass shooting" or; -There are at least 3 news articles referring to the shooting as a "mass shooting" or; -It is listed in the Mother Jones database, as their definition reflects the most widely accepted definition for a mass shooting (Widely accepted; nobody would dispute that Columbine is a mass shooting, whereas everyone being honest would dispute that a shooting in a hotel room with 4 gang members fighting over drugs is a mass shooting).

Katfactz (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

If we are looking for a definition of mass shooting, lets start here Mass_shooting#Definitions. Expand and discuss on sources listed in that section.---- Work permit (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Katfatcz is here to Right a Great Wrong and doesn't care about doing any of that, Work permit. They very much want to indicate that there are fewer shootings, and have stated such a purpose. That's a hard row to plow given that we already have consensus about what constitutes a mass shooting. I don't know what they mean by "arbitration" but whatever. They are a "criminology expert".--Jorm (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Got it. He listed this talk page on "third opinions" which is how I came accross this page. It seems there are already plenty of opinions already, and a consensus already exists. FWIW a quick look I made on the Mass shootings talk page seems to define it more or less in line with this page. Mother Jones notwithstanding, his definition seems to be the outlier.---- Work permit (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems his or her definition actually matches the related phrase "random mass shooting", which would be a subset. 92.11.149.88 (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no "consensus", and in fact on the page you mention it very clearly says "there is no consensus". This page here is treating it as if there is one, and is instead listing a demonstrably biased definition only instead of presenting the various opinions. "My definition" is the definition not only used by mother jones, but the FBI, the Congressional research body that did a report, and other official sources. Versus, the other side, which includes a lobbying entity whose stated goal is to take down the NRA.Katfactz (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:RGW, I see no issue with the article as it is just reporting on mass shootings. If you want to propose a section regarding the opposing point of view then feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2019

Please delete the line mentioning a shooting listed in Pelham, New Hampshire. It does not meet the definition listed on the page for mass shootings -- it is supposed to meet at least two of the listed definitions, and, with only 2 people shot, it does not meet the definition. Dejaffa (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a notice

I wanted to check the sources for both Januray 1st shootings, but they are both broken now, not giving an article.

This whole article is wrong and needs a rework.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. I'm a statistics expert and criminologist who has studied this issue for 20 years.

Every serious criminologist defines a mass shooting as one with random victims not related to another crime in progress. Every - single - one - of - us.

By this measure, the leading statistic in this article is WAY off. Epic propaganda proportions, off. Question the legitimacy of wikipedia for the rest of our lives, off.

Just look at the list. The most recent as of 9AM Eastern on 8/21/19 is "Four teenagers were wounded after an argument escalated during a potential party in a hotel room". Are you kidding? This is not a mass shooting. Neither was this! "Seven people were injured in a shooting at a party" Further, the title in wikipedia of the linked article is wrong.

The most common-sense definition of a mass shooting, the one that we all think of when we think of a mass shooting, is "an event where someone selects four or more people and kills them in an indiscriminate manner". Indiscriminate, meaning, no other crime in progress, not gang or domestic violence related. Random murder. This is literally what we all know to be a mass shooting. This is what's on the news - not "four shot in gang dispute". So why do we pretend there's another definition in this article?

This is a clear attempt at creating anti-gun propaganda.

" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katfactz (talk • contribs) 13:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

If everyone thought like you say they do, some actual tracking group would use your definition, or at least common sense suggests one might. Can you point to one that does, or even a single serious criminologist? Your premise that "mass shooting" is a distinct crime from some "other crime" seems seriously wonky to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Here: https://rockinst.org/issue-area/can-mass-shootings-be-stopped/ is a report offered by a group of experts which reiterates Katfactz's criticisms. They have offered an alternative definition and produced an alternative dataset. One of the authors, Jaclyn Schildkraut, is a well published expert on mass shootings: http://www.jaclynschildkraut.com/about-jaclyn/biography/ Kphawkins (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Katfactz (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Yes - motherjones has a complete list, which is using the same definition as government sources who have defined a mass shooting. Furthermore, we all know what a mass shooting is based on media coverage, do we not? Can we honestly say something like this (https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/police-investigating-shooting-in-nw-albuquerque/5490039/) is a mass shooting? Nobody can. That's ridiculous.

It is not up to you to decide the definition. I don't care if you think it is ridiculous or not. This is not the "Katfactz thinks these are mass shootings" page; it is the "all these sources say this are mass shootings" page. --Jorm (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Katfactz (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)A political organization with a stated intent to pass gun control regulations is not a "source". Want to use sources, let's use the media, as suggested. Even the source linked to the shooting doesn't call it a "mass shooting".

Katfactz (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)This article doesn't even match all of the other mass shooting articles. The Source they're using here doesn't even have data going back before 2011. Look up "mass shootings in new mexico", and show me where the two most recent "Mass shootings" on this page are. They're not there because it's a ludicrous definition with the stated intent to pass gun laws.

I rolled back the latest of serious blanking of the article's information due to lack of consensus in the talk page, it seems right now its just user Katfactz stating their opinion over and over again. The definitions used in the articles List of mass shootings in the United States and List of mass shootings in the United States in 2018 are accepted and have already gone through a large amount of discussion previously. They also mirror the definitions used in this article. The article also does not include any incidents which are gang related and highlight the widespread and serious nature of the amount of crimes. Leaky.Solar (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The facts: -Every government agency that has weighed in on mass shootings has said a mass shooting is indiscriminate in nature. -Every media organization blasts mass shootings all over the news when they meet these standards. -The overly broad standard in this article has the sole purpose of making it look like mass shootings are a larger problem than they actually are in order to pass gun control legislation. -The number here has been quoted by left wing politicians who have been fact checked with "half true" statements cautioning that this is an overly broad definition. -The other mass shooting pages did NOT echo the definitions on this page until someone changed them to include these very controversial and broad definitions -The groups who use these definitions are not recognized or peer reviewed, and have stated on their web pages that they are in fact operating under bias and trying to change laws with their data

Proposed change: -Set higher standards on this page. Do not include things like "4 guys shot in a hotel room over drugs" because that's clearly not a mass shooting. -Use the standard of there is either a wikipedia page dedicated to the shooting + 2 news articles calling it a "mass shooting" or; -There are at least 3 news articles referring to the shooting as a "mass shooting" or; -It is listed in the Mother Jones database, as their definition reflects the most widely accepted definition for a mass shooting (Widely accepted; nobody would dispute that Columbine is a mass shooting, whereas everyone being honest would dispute that a shooting in a hotel room with 4 gang members fighting over drugs is a mass shooting).

Katfactz (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

If we are looking for a definition of mass shooting, lets start here Mass_shooting#Definitions. Expand and discuss on sources listed in that section.---- Work permit (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Katfatcz is here to Right a Great Wrong and doesn't care about doing any of that, Work permit. They very much want to indicate that there are fewer shootings, and have stated such a purpose. That's a hard row to plow given that we already have consensus about what constitutes a mass shooting. I don't know what they mean by "arbitration" but whatever. They are a "criminology expert".--Jorm (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Got it. He listed this talk page on "third opinions" which is how I came accross this page. It seems there are already plenty of opinions already, and a consensus already exists. FWIW a quick look I made on the Mass shootings talk page seems to define it more or less in line with this page. Mother Jones notwithstanding, his definition seems to be the outlier.---- Work permit (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems his or her definition actually matches the related phrase "random mass shooting", which would be a subset. 92.11.149.88 (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no "consensus", and in fact on the page you mention it very clearly says "there is no consensus". This page here is treating it as if there is one, and is instead listing a demonstrably biased definition only instead of presenting the various opinions. "My definition" is the definition not only used by mother jones, but the FBI, the Congressional research body that did a report, and other official sources. Versus, the other side, which includes a lobbying entity whose stated goal is to take down the NRA.Katfactz (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:RGW, I see no issue with the article as it is just reporting on mass shootings. If you want to propose a section regarding the opposing point of view then feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

These are not "mass shootings". A drive by with 4 people shot and injured is not a "mass shooting", yet this page is filled with examples like that.

-Congress, the FBI, the Washington Post and any other serious, non-bias source defines a mass shooting as an event with a sole purpose of killing as many people as possible, not related to other crimes.

-The "List of Mass Shootings in the United States" page does not match this page, and the majority of sources/definitions do not align with this page.

-The media does not call most of these shootings "mass shootings". If we took a poll, the majority of people would not call the majority of these shootings "mass shootings".

-The sources that are listed have listed, in their mission statements, the goal of creating more gun control laws and, whether you agree with them or not, are the very definition of biased sources.

-ONLY ONE OF SEVEN (updated; mass shooting tracker is no longer running)!!! of the data sources listed consider the definition used in this article. How in the hell are we going off of the definition of 2/7 sources and not the 5/7?

-Mass shooting tracker's website claimed this, showing their bias: "Maintaining a list like this also punches a hole in the NRA argument that if mass shootings are televised, more mass shootings will occur via copycats."

Katfactz (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Enough with the WP:POVPUSH, a number of editors have already told you to stop per WP:RGW. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You just tried to re-include a source, which no longer exists, which when it did exist stated that its goal was to push a point of view and oppose an advocacy organization, and you're accusing me of trying to push a pov? Comical. My observations are fact based and there has been no logical argument to counter them. Katfactz (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request

The gun lobby suggests that the general population being armed makes society safer. As this data is collated is it possible to include how the perpetrator was stopped. Were they stopped by Police or armed civilian intervention. I have not phrased this very well.

Beginning of comment by editor other than the above editor who failed to sign his or her post: Many have amassed data on mass shootings in recent years, and yes, we do record how the perpetrator was stopped. With respect to "the general population being armed makes society safer" naturally follows in that 95% of the population are not violent criminals. In fact, the FBI published three reports detailing active shooter events ("One or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area") from 2000-2013, 2014-2015 and 2016-2017. Their data shows an armed citizen was present and engaged the active shooter in 11.7% of the total incidents. Armed citizens were either not present or did not engage the active shooter at 88.3% of the active shooter events. Of the 11.7% of engagements, armed citizens were successful in stopping the active shooter 75.8% of the time and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% of the incidents. In only 6.1% of the incidents was the armed shooter not helpful in either stopping the active shooter or in reducing the loss of life. In summary, where armed citizens were present and engaged an active shooter, they were successful in either stopping or reducing the active shooter's efforts 94% of time, and were unhelpful only 6% of the time. In other words, they were more than 15 times more likely to be helpful than unhelpful. I hope this answers what appears to be the requestor's request.Clepsydrae (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Missing

This article is missing 5 separate shootings in Brevard county Florida since 10/31/2019 being the first of 5 83kearns (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

What's your source for this? TomCat4680 (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Request: Column for incident number.

Can we get a column added to the table given the number of the incident for easy indication of how many incidents so far? Starting with #1 at the bottom on Tallahassee on January 1, up to whatever Pensacola is (the most recent as of today). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.43.174 (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

These stats are ridiculous.

Four people injured wasn't a "mass shooting" until that new way of counting was invented by anti-gun groups after Sandy Hook to "scare" society into supporting more gun control. Additionally, there is no actual evidence that many of the injuries are even gunshot-related. These statistics are compiled just by sweeping through news reports that simply say "1 killed, 3 injured". We can assume the dead person was shot to death, but how do you know that 3 injuries weren't people getting cuts and bruises while running? You don't.

Additionally, pretending that these stats have any kind of objectivity with the "they must meet the definition of at least two measurement criteria" is a lie, because the measurement criteria for three of them is essentially identical. Why even list the other entities like Mother Jones who are saying "three *KILLED*" when you can literally have a 'mass shooting' where zero people even died, which is the overwhelming majority of these "shootings"?

These statistics are politically slanted to push an agenda, not to inform. No other country and no official organization considers a handful of injuries as a 'mass shooting'. One person could shoot one bullet and it could fragment and give four people tiny cuts that need nothing more than a bandaid and it would be a "mass shooting".

Lastly, to prove how ridiculous this is, the police chase / shootout in Miami is even on here as a 'mass shooting'. No matter how badly you think the cops acted, calling that a mass shooting is asinine since it relies on counting the dead burglars to meet the standards to be included on the list. By this logic, four bank robbers holding people hostage who were neutralized by a SWAT team would be 'victims of a mass shooting'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.137.133.169 (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. Without argument, it looks like there's a consensus and this page needs a rework. Some of the sources they're using to justify their definition are defunct/inactive, and there appears to be no standard used as to how to determine the legitimacy of the sources. Upon investigation, it appears some of the sources with broad definitions promote biased agendas, stating they essentially want to increase the number so people think it's a larger problem than it is. Looking back, it appears there has been censorship of anyone who disagrees with certain editors/admins on this thread. How do we get more attention to this so the thread can be edited without retribution? 2605:A601:AAFC:EC00:4DC:A080:B07A:41A (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

What metric are you suggesting be used instead? I'm not sure what you're talking about with respect to "censorship". The ongoing problem at this page has been that people object to the inclusion criteria, but have not made any sort of convincing case for a specific alternative set of criteria. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not what the logs show. I see multiple suggestions that appear to be much less biased, including using official media sources' language. So if multiple verified media sources call something a mass shooting, it is a mass shooting. But to the OP's point, nobody on earth would call the Miami incident a "mass shooting" other than some of the editors on this thread. It also looks like some users (Jorm) have archived talk topics that were still relevant and within the 30 day auto-archive time period. It all looks a lot like censorship. 2605:A601:AAFC:EC00:71F1:EE9A:BA39:C39D (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)