Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valjean (talk | contribs) at 03:53, 15 March 2018 (→HEADS UP... ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions apply here: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Mass shooting was copied or moved into Mass shootings in the United States with this edit on 5 November 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Type of guns used in mass shootings

I would propose we add a column to the table to include the type of weapon used in the shootings. Shaded0 (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cdiasoh: can you please review / update source if you update the column on this? Shaded0 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Were you thinking of "type" (eg hand gun, shotgun, semi-automatic rife) or the specific gun (eg Smith & Wesson M&P15). I would support using type rather than anything more specific so that comparison is easier. At the moment someone who doesn't know guns (like myself and most of the world) has to click through to find out what a Ruger AR-556 is. I don't think anything is added by naming the exact gun(s). Gaia Octavia Agrippa 16:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

the wiki articles of the events name the weapons used. but I also use for backup the following ref regardless the Ruger 556 was not used in any event but the TX Church shooting. Cdiasoh (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html

to date no automatic weapon has been used on this list so I would remove the semi-automatic tag. Cdiasoh (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I can see this getting messy so I'm going to remove the names of guns and replace them with types. Its a summary table, if people want more information they can go to the Wiki article in question. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 17:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: I'd disagree -- I think it's very good to draw attention to the manufacturers and gun types. Many are based upon the Colt AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle, so it is good to draw attention to this fact. I am also guessing that the type will all be "Semi-automatic rifle". Maybe split into two separate columns? Shaded0 (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

As stated, its a summary article. The details of specific guns, the date and time of the attack, the victim details etc are available on the specific article. The table is there for caparison and as a list of the most deadly attacks. You could create a section discussing the specific guns used in these types of attacks if you want. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 17:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Shaded0: The table is supposed to be a summary. It doesn't need the specific weapon. Many of the attacks used multiple weapons. If you would like to discus the specific weapons used, add a new section to the article. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 17:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: respectfully, I still disagree. I think including the specific weapon is still an adequate level of info as a summary without overwhelming the reader. It appears we're at an impasse on this one - so I'll wait on further input from others. Shaded0 (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

While you're waiting, why don't you start a new section? Maybe call it "Weapons used". Gaia Octavia Agrippa 17:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Shaded0: thank for starting the section. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 17:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Why is it important to specify whether or not it was based on an AR15 design? A semi-automatic rifle tells us the important fact. Allow me to illustrate: The Colt AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14 are quite similar. Both are semi-automatic, use a box magazine, fire the same ammo and have comparable rates of fire. The only real difference is cosmetic. If any of these events used the Ruger, would there have been fewer deaths or would the victims be less injured/dead? Of course not. How does being highlighting that one is based on a AR15 design really helping, except to perhaps advance a POV about AR type rifles? I also see no need to differentiate between whether a semi-auto pistol was made by Beretta, Glock or Smith & Wesson. Semi-auto pistol is sufficient. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: I am ok with changing the wording with something more neutral if you feel this is appropriate. Feel free to take a look and edit with new/updated wording. I will take a look and propose if any suggestions/changes. Shaded0 (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• The question is still why are you singling this out? There are 20 shootings listed there. 10 of them use no rifle at all. Of the remaining 10, 2 didn't use an AR type firearm at all. Why are you focused on the minority use? 13 of the 20 used handguns. Why aren't you focused on that? Why the part about the bump fire stock? That was used in a single instance and they make the stock for other firearms besides the AR types. Lastly, you put in a bunch of info about ammo that was used in a minority of the incidents. You are clearly trying to make a point and this is part of the issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: chill. This is the first revision and non-comprehensive at the moment. If you believe I have made notable exclusions at the moment then feel free to add or clarify. Please propose some revisions on this rather than hammering on the draft. Shaded0 (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Draft? I'm talking about the content in the actual article. That's no longer a draft. You probably should be using a draft, but you have chosen not to. I think the issue isn't "notable exclusions" as much as dubious inclusions that appear to be more agenda based than quality based. But thanks for ignring every single question I raised, choosing instead to tell me to "chill" and falsely assert that you had this all just in a draft form. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: per your points see the policy on Misplaced Pages:Assume_good_faith. As much as possible, I have tried to be neutral on this. Trying to discredit my points by raising questions about my "agenda" as an editor seems to raise as much an issue. Focus on the content sir. I will step aside from this for now and let others raise points on this. Shaded0 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, you have ignored the questions. Why is it important to specify whether or not it was based on an AR15 design? Why are you focused on the minority use? 13 of the 20 used handguns. Why aren't you focused on that? Why the part about the bump fire stock? Complaining about AGF won't make me forget about those questions. While you say you are being neutral, but I would question that based on the actual edits you've made and attempts you've made all seem to be towards one end. Calling a WP:DUCK a duck isn't lacking in good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa I checked the types of guns that were *not* listed as semi-utomatic rifles and found that in the other categories, such as "multiple weapons" and "handguns" there were some that were actually included semi-automatic rifles (in multiple weapons) and others which included semi-automatic pistols. There were only two shootings in the table which did not include a semi-automatic weapon (#6 and #8). Since it is evidently difficult to pull off a mass shooting without a semi-automatic weapon, I think we need to highlight this in the table. royjohn47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royjohn47 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• The position that it's hard to pull off a mass shooting without a semi-automatic is wrongheaded. In some cases the semi-auto is not the primary weapon used. In another, it's a semi-auto, but one made since 1908 that has a low capacity. Lastly, you're making the statement by only looking at the few listed on the table. If we accept the definition of a "mass shooting" used here and the claims of hundreds of them occuring, then how to we make a conclusion like that looking at 20-25? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Royjohn47! There was a section titled "Types of weapons used" that discussed the weapons used in more detail but it was removed. You can read this in a previous version of the article here. I'm going to re-add the well referenced part of this section. If you can find further reliable references discussing this topic, feel free to expand that section. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 01:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

follow up

I have to say, Niteshift36 raised some very valid points in his questions and comments above (this past November). No one seemed interested in answering them and instead, the discussion ended quite abruptly. Then, of course after the Florida school shooting on February 14, there was a flurry of activity on the article, (in fact I believe it had to be protected at one point). Since then, there has been a concerted effort to add as much mass-shooting content to AR-15 related articles as possible (and then some) and vice-versa, linking AR-15 pages to mass-shooting related articles. It's at the point where several debates were shut down and directed toward an RfC at the Village Pump. That RfC is still open an on-going with no apparent consensus as of yet, but the reason I bring this up is I noticed Gaia Octavia Agrippa had also (re-)added significant content regarding AR-15s, 4 days after the Florida shooting, but, the edit summary simply said "re-added some of deleted section".

It appears this was originally put together collaboratively between Gaia and Shadedo in November then removed. I'm just curious if there was any wider discussion or consensus for this section at any point between November and a last February 19 or if it was a "bold" effort all the way? The reason I bring this up is, especially in light of all related debates, and Niteshift36's unanswered questions, I am wondering why the need to highlight the AR-15 here out of all the other weapons? It seems to be needless, undue weight. And without the specific linked mention of the AR-15, the whole "Types of weapons used" article section is redundant, as it could be removed, and "semiautomatic rifle", "handgun" and "shotgun" could just be linked in the "Types of weapons used" table section, no? That's how the article was a couple weeks ago and it was fine. It was a stable, balanced, informative article. Like I said, just curious. Cheers - WOLFchild 14:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC) (sorry about the length)

Date vs year in table

I would prefer to keep just the year in the table. Adding the full date makes the table even larger than it is and I don't think the specific date really adds any more relevant information. If someone wants specifics about a particular shooting, all they need to do is click through to its article. Perhaps Blysbane, you could explain your reasoning for adding the dates? Gaia Octavia Agrippa 19:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Just using the year is fine, but for readability, put it to the right of the "Deaths" column. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

thanks for your comment, I've reverted it back to just year. Bellow is what the table would look like with the year moved to be the third column. I'm not a fan because it separates the incident from the year it occurred, but I'll wait for yours and others opinions. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 14:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yah, looks better with year in the second column. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

1. ^ "Deadliest Mass Shootings in Modern US History Fast Facts". CNN. Retrieved 5 November 2017.
2. ^ "Texas gunman used same rifle as Las Vegas, Newtown mass shooters". NY Daily News. Retrieved 2017-11-07.
3. Carissimo, Justin (6 November 2017). "26 dead in shooting at church in Sutherland Springs, Texas". CBS News. Retrieved 6 November 2017.
4. ^ "Terrorist attacks and related incidents in the United States". johnstonarchive.net. Retrieved 6 November 2017.

"Prevalence of locations where victims are disarmed and unable to defend themselves"

An IP recently added this --- One of the sources used is simply Rick Perry's opinion. Per WP:Weight I do not think the material belongs in the article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrator's names in table

How is putting the names of the perpetrators in the table "too specific". It is not listing the specific weapons used in the shootings or the listing the date of the shootings. If I wanted to, I would make the table include every mass shooting with 3 deaths and above, the date of the shootings, number of injured, and the exact weapons used in the shootings. But I do not intend to put the specifics on the list as that is not simple and glorifies the perpetrators. The information that I included is not intended to glorify these tragedies nor do I believe simply listing the first and last names of the perpetrators increases a copycat effect that is a motive for a lot of shootings. The information's intent is to be simple and important --Blysbane (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Other shootings.

What about Wounded Knee, Waco, Ruby Ridge ? Dkaegi (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

- ! !! Incident !! Year !! Deaths !! Type of weapon(s) used !! Reference(s) Asdflars (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Rejected due to not being a change. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 23:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Market Street Massacre

{| class="wikitable sortable" |- ! !! Incident !! Year !! Deaths !! Type of weapon(s) used !! Reference(s) |- ! 21 | ] || 1948 || {{sort|9|9 (including the perpetrator)}} || .22 caliber rifle || <ref name=“20th C Murder” /><ref name=“Why They Kill”>{{cite book |last=Ramsland |first=Katherine M. |date=2005 |title=Inside the Minds of Mass Murderers: Why They Kill |location=Westport, CT |publisher=Praeger |page=4 |isbn=0275984753 }}</ref><ref name=“20th C Murder”>{{cite book |last=Nash |first=Jay R. |date=1994 |title=World Encyclopedia of 20th Century Murder. |location=NY |publisher=Marlowe & Co. |page=129 |oclc=780510041 }}</ref><ref name=“Market Street”>{{cite web |url=http://www.oldchesterpa.com/tragedies_market_st_massacre.htm |title=Chester, PA: Tragedies - Market Street Massacre |author=<!—Not stated—> |date=18 Nov 2005 |website=Old Chester in Delaware County, PA |publisher= |access-date=16 Feb 2018 |quote=}}</ref> |- |}

The cut off point is the top 20 deadliest; equal 20th are those incidents resulting in 10 deaths. With 8/9 killed, this falls outside of the top 20. The reference isn't reliable either. One of the reasons that the list begins in 1949, is that incidents before that are not well sourced and therefore difficult to verify. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 06:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There's three refs there but only the web one displayed. Others are easy to find, e.g. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZLEKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LE4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4107,2674818&dq= http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,853406,00.html Multiple photos of victims and perpetrator had been taken. Sourcing didn't get magically better in 1949, what's the source for that claim? Also, "c. 1949 onwards" doesn't mean "1949 onwards" but "approximately 1949 onwards," which fits 1948. And johnstonsarchive.net which is used repeatedly in the article is reliable? A physicist's personal website? Please. "Top 20" is arbitrary and an odd way of putting it. Thanks for the reminder of why WP is not worth trying to edit. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:E7C7:AF00:C8D8:FE6:F349:DE10 (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the other references. However, it still stands that with 8 or 9 deaths this incident was not one of the most deadliest in US history. This article is not a list article, although it does contain a list section. There has to be a cut off point of inclusion: in this case the deadliest incidents all resulted in double figure deaths. Including those resulting in 8 or 9 deaths would greatly increase the size of the table. You may wish to look at List of rampage killers (Americas), which is a list article, and included the incident you are referring to. The reason 1950 is used as a cut off point is twofold: firstly it is the cut off point used by many of the sources, and secondly it was the Camden shootings of 1949 that triggered greater coverage and accuracy in reporting such incidents. The fact that, even with multiple sources, it is impossible to ascertain whether there were 8 or 9 deaths from the so called "Market Street massacre" shows the difficulties with the reporting of these incidents pre-Camden. I hope this explanation is satisfactory and please don't be put off editing. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 20:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Good idea for an article, but it needs work.

1. The table format is awkward and restricting
2. Wouldn't a simple list be more...simple?
3. Why limit the list at 20? Long lists are not a problem for Misplaced Pages.
4. Why are the items listed by arbitrary names, but not names we can all agree on: location or name of shooter, or both. This is very hard to follow. I just added Mark O. Barton which has no arbitrary name that I know of. 'The day trade shooter'? Makes no sense.
5. Why a seperate column of references? Lists are more clear. Johnsagent (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Johnsagent, the table is there so it can be sorted: at the moment it is ordered by number of deaths but the "sortability" of a table means a reader can quickly order it by weapon used or year. The limit is there because this is not a list article. There are comprehensive list articles elsewhere (i.e. List of rampage killers). Mark O. Barton is listed at List of rampage killers (workplace killings). What you classify as "arbitrary names" are consistent with WP:COMMON NAME (i.e. " the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources"): Misplaced Pages isn't here to make up names for things, we use what the sources use.

Could we please discuss the inclusion/exclusion of Mark O. Barton? The main issue is that this is about an article about "mass shootings", not spree killings or attacks using non-guns. Precedent has already been set with the GMAC shootings: this was a series of shootings but the attack on 18 June counts as a mass shooting and resulted in ten deaths so that is included rather than the total across all the shootings. In the case of Barton, he used a hammer (not a gun) in the attack on his family and a gun during the attack on his work. Therefore, it is only the mass shooting on 29 July which would be included in the table: | 1999 | 10 (including the perpetrator) | Handguns. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 23:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Just looked at WP:CommonNames and I don't think you're following it correctly. The emphasis must be on understanding and maxium recognition. I've been paying attention and haven't heard of half of them. I see no reason why adding the preps name or perhaps another major identifier would hinder the article in anyway. I agree with Blysbane. In addition, I fail to see much difference between mass shootings, spree killers, postal killings, rampage killers and serial killers. Your lead paragraph should be more comprehensive as well as definitive. And what was your reason for including only 20 again? Johnsagent (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes WP:Common Name is begin used correctly: "Misplaced Pages generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) ... When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.". Whether you know these attacks by that name or is redundant: we rely on reliable sources to give us the name, or if that's lacking, we come to a WP:Consensus as editors.

This is an article about Mass shootings in the United States. It is not an article about Mass shooters in the United States. The aim of the section with the table is to provide a brief list of the "Deadliest shootings": it is not a comprehensive list of all mass shootings. The contents of the table reflect what is discussed in the article above: The section originally contained only the 10 deadliest but as this resulted in many notable shootings being omitted, it was expanded to 20. As I've already said, this is not a list article (comprehensive lists already exist elsewhere, eg List of rampage killers (Americas)) and so there has to be a limit: 20 is a reasonable limit.

You start by saying you haven't heard of half of them and therefore the names must be wrong, and then you go on to say you don't understand the differences between mass shootings/spree killers/postal killings etc. The definition of mass shooting is given in the opening paragraph: "A mass shooting is usually defined as a shooting resulting in at least four victims, excluding the perpetrator". This is clearly different to the definition of Spree killer as given at that article "A spree killer is someone who kills two or more victims in a short time in multiple locations.". Using the example of Mark O. Barton:

• he is both a spree killer and a mass shooter
  • Spee = killing his family (on 27 July) and attacking his former work places (on 29 July): within two/three days counts as a short period of time
  • Mass shooting = attacking his former work places (with a gun and within the same continuous incident).
  • Serial killer = he allegedly killed members of his family in 1993 and then killed members of his family in 1998, the length of time between these acts with multiple victims would make him a serial killer.

Does this example help you understand the differences? As for serial killers, if If not, please do some further reading yourself: Misplaced Pages has various articles on these matters or you can find another source.

It is not "my opening paragraph": Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort and you are more than welcome to expand it yourself. I'm going to change the entry for Barton (its now called "Atlanta shootings" as this is what a number of sources call it) to reflect that only the workplace shooting was a mass shooting. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 21:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

Please see diff; the restored text included: "A mass shooting is defined by the Reddit subforum "Guns are cool" as a shooting resulting in at least four victims..." This must have been some vandalism that slipped in. I reverted the change. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: It appears that the user only read the first few sentences of the source without bothering to read the rest of it, or the other sources. Seemingly a blind reversion. Also they removed a huge chunk of the article that was sourced in the Weapons Used section. R9tgokunks ✡ 06:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The first source:

[[tq|Since then, the crowd-sourced Mass Shooting Tracker has become a near-daily source of information about shootings in the United States. It's a crowd-sourced list of all shooting incidents in which four or more people are killed or injured by gunfire, culled mainly from media reports. Reddit users submit mass shooting incidents on the subreddit's page, which then feeds the standalone Tracker website.}} is the "4 or more killed." Not "federal law." That's just made up bullshit.

For starters, it's important to realize that there has never been one universally accepted definition of a “mass shooting.” The government has never even defined "mass shooting" as a stand-alone category. and The FBI used to consider someone a "mass murderer" if they killed four or more people during one event, regardless of weapons used. But starting in 2013, federal statutes defined "mass killing" as three or more people killed, regardless of weapons. And unlike the tracker, the tally doesn't include the killer if he or she is eventually killed by law enforcement or takes his or her own life. So now we have mass killing (death by any means of 3 or more), mass murderer is one who kills 4 ore more people and the reddit group that says mass shooting is 4 or more that are killed or injured. See the problem of conflating all different stuff into one and claiming it has any kind of acceptance? Further, Mother Jones (the other source) says Broadly speaking, the term refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence. But there is no official set of criteria or definition for a mass shooting, according to criminology experts and FBI officials contacted by Mother Jones. and here's Mother Jones in 2012 We honed our criteria accordingly: The attack must have occurred essentially in a single incident, in a public place; We excluded crimes of armed robbery, gang violence, or domestic violence in a home, focusing on cases in which the motive appeared to be indiscriminate mass murder; The killer, in accordance with the FBI criterion, had to have taken the lives of at least four people. and now in 2018, the data Mother Jones has for the graph lists their "mass shootings" - number 5 on the list is 3 deaths. More bullshit. So now it points to their new guide In January 2013, a mandate for federal investigation of mass shootings authorized by President Barack Obama lowered that baseline to three or more victims killed. Accordingly, we include attacks dating from January 2013 in which three or more victims died. So did either of you read this? It's all shifting sand definitions with no definitions and the article is blatantly synthesizing datasets, definitions and conclusion. Some are listing only 4 or more killed, some are three or more killed, some are 4 or more killed or injured, some include Domestice Violence, robberies, and gang violence while some exclude some or all. It all needs to be unwound and attributed. --DHeyward (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by R9tgokunks

You're seemingly keen on calling things you don't agree with " bullshit." The Washington Post is a highly reliable source in regards to it's reporting, and perfect for use on Misplaced Pages, in that regard. Also, this statement is cited by both The Washington Post and Mother Jones. The information is included in both sources.

WaPo:

"But starting in 2013, federal statutes defined "mass killing" as three or more people killed, regardless of weapons"

Mother Jones:

"In January 2013, a mandate for federal investigation of mass shootings authorized by President Barack Obama lowered that baseline to three or more victims killed."

A quick search on Google comes up with the law, signed on Jan 14, 2013 (amendments made to the "Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012") as posted on Congress.gov, which has not been changed:

"(I) the term ‘mass killings’ means 3 or more killings in a single incident;"

R9tgokunks ✡ 09:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Factually incorrect definition

The lede makes the rather astounding claim that "A mass shooting, according to the United States federal law, is usually defined as a shooting resulting in at least 3 victims, excluding the perpetrator." The only source provided for this claim, isn't one of the federal government's many websites, but rather, a Washington Post article that is referencing the standards used by a Reddit project! In fact, the FBI's definition for a "mass-shooting" is explained thus by the Congressional Research Service (a branch of the Federal Government that's sometimes called "Congress' think tank"):
"According to the FBI, the term 'mass murder' has been defined generally as a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered, within one event, and in one or more locations in close geographical proximity. Based on this definition, for the purposes of this report, 'mass shooting' is defined as a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, and in one or more locations in close proximity. Similarly, a 'mass public shooting' is defined to mean a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, in at least one or more public locations, such as, a workplace, school, restaurant, house of worship, neighborhood, or other public setting." https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44126.pdf (emphasis added)
So the claim that "according to the United States federal law, (a mass-shooting) is usually defined as a shooting resulting in at least 3 victims" is patently untrue and as such, must be removed. Bricology (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by R9tgokunks

The title of this post is misleading, as well as some of the wording of the post. Also, it doesn't seem like you read the sources attached to the sentence thoroughly enough. There are two sources with this information. This statement is cited by both The Washington Post and Mother Jones. The information is included in both sources.

WaPo:

"But starting in 2013, federal statutes defined "mass killing" as three or more people killed, regardless of weapons"

Mother Jones:

"In January 2013, a mandate for federal investigation of mass shootings authorized by President Barack Obama lowered that baseline to three or more victims killed."

A quick search on Google comes up with the law, signed on Jan 14, 2013 (amendments made to the "Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012") as posted on Congress.gov, which has not been changed:

"(I) the term ‘mass killings’ means 3 or more killings in a single incident;"

R9tgokunks ✡ 09:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm very busy right not, but I'd like to point everyone to Mass shooting#Definition were there is already a pretty comprehensive and fully cited section concerning the definition. Particularly this bit:

A crowdsourced data site cited by CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist, the BBC, etc., Mass Shooting Tracker, defines a mass shooting as any incident in which four or more people are shot, whether injured or killed. As of November 2017, the FBI defines a mass shooting as an incident involving "four or more people shot at once."

Four or more people shot in a single incident is the definition of mass shooting as used by the press, nonprofit groups and the FBI. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 22:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe federal law trumps that. But also see at Politifact: :

"As noted above, there is no widely accepted definition of mass shootings. People use either broad or restrictive definitions of mass shootings to reinforce their stance on gun control.

After the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, Congress defined "mass killings" as three or more homicides in a single incident. The definition was intended to clarify when the U.S. Attorney General could assist state and local authorities in investigations of violent acts and shootings in places of public use."

R9tgokunks ✡ 22:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The main issue with "your" definition is the wording: "mass killings" vs "mass shootings". This is an article concerning the latter and so the definition we should be using should be specifically about the latter. Saying that "mass killings" equals "mass shootings" is incorrect. Its like using a definition of restaurant in fast food outlet article: they aren't equivalent. The definition of mass killings is from 2012/13. Looking at more recent definitions: FBI (2017) = "four or more people shot at once", and Congressional Research Service (2015) = "multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, and in one or more locations in close proximity". I'm going to change the definition back to four or more victims. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 10:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That is invalid. We are not here to play semantics. Read the sources provided. They all corroborate this in the context of "mass shooting."

R9tgokunks ✡ 16:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• You can have a mass killing without firearms. You can have a mass shooting without any fatalities. Stop trying to use thew terms interchangably. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Highlighting in table

Is it really necessary to have each and every entry that "Was previously the deadliest mass shooting" highlighted in bright neon-lime green? There is specific column for number of "Deaths" and the table is sortable. This just seems like a needless distraction. If no one objects, I think it should be removed. - WOLFchild 01:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I object. They are highlighted so that readers can tell which were formerly the deadliest shootings (obviously). If they weren't highlighted there would be no way of telling. The fact that the table is sortable is not related to highlighting the deadliest shooting: regardless of how you chose to order the table it won't tell you the above. The point of the table to provide brief information in a simple and acceptable way. Are you objecting to pointing out the previously most delay shooting or the way it is pointed out (i.e. through highlighting)? Gaia Octavia Agrippa 02:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"If they weren't highlighted there would be no way of telling." - I'm not sure why you think that. Like I said, it's a sortable table. By simply clicking the year column into descending order, anyone can see the greatest number, then look down to the the next greatest number. I don't see the difficulty in this, but just the same, I won't push the point. However, that said, I have changed the method of indication from highlighting with color to a symbol (†) as per MOS:COLOR, which states that "color alone should not be used to mark difference in text" (and we don't need both). The same incidents are noted as clearly as before, but the indicator is a little more subtle than that bright neon-lime green (or whatever you call it, which is not appropriate for this type of article). Along with that, MOS:ACCESS also applies, for those that are visually impaired by color-blindness. I believe this change should satisfy everyone's needs as well as the relevant guidelines. - WOLFchild 12:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC taking place elsewhere

@Niteshift36: With regard to your repeated reverts of @Gaia Octavia Agrippa: restoring material here, your edit summary makes reference to a discussion taking place. Are you talking about the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Coverage of mass shootings in firearms articles? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• If I meant a discussion somewhere else, I'd have said that. I mean the discussion on this page, which Gaia has apparently abandoned.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting information is needed in the Lankford report

I won't try to sound progun or anything, but while the Adam Lankford report which states that America has 31 percent of the worlds mass shootings despite only 5 percent of the worlds population size which, has been well cited by both the media and Misplaced Pages it by itself has not escaped it's fair share of critics. Gary Kleck, along with Trinity College economics professor Ed Stringham has criticized Adam's report for relaying on NYPD data on mass shootings, which even Lankford himself states misses international cases. Violence and Victims Association, who published his paper and it's Editor-in-Chief Roland Maiuro said that Lankford’s paper was approved by anonymous independent researchers.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/28/critics-shoot-holes-in-widely-cited-gun-study.html

One flaw in his study is that Lankford does not provide a comprehensive list of these massacres which makes hard to clearify. His study is here. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/2016/00000031/00000002/art00001;jsessionid=20nejrgfs0m72.x-ic-live-03#

One other source that could be referenced along with the Lankford study is a Snopes article which debates if America has a lower per capita number of victims. The article says that the answer to this question is a bit of yes and a bit of no. Sounds worth a glance. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-states-lower-death-shootings/

HEADS UP... ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions apply here

Notice the template near the top and be careful. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class Death articles
• Mid-importance Death articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles