Gun prohibitionists routinely lie and distort the truth to fit The Narrative. This is one of the reasons why gun rights advocates seem so obstinate. "Common sense gun reform that we can all agree on" rings differently when it's coming from the people who have gaslit you and people like you for decades than it does to normies. See also: https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/
Why do you think 'mass shooting' implies 'indiscriminate'? Looking at wikipedia: it seems definitions are mainly that 3+ or 4+ people are killed, which also fits my intuition.
This isn't my interpretation. I "think" it implies that because that is literally what the media reports it as.
In today's "Five Things" wrap up at CNN, they included the Tulsa hospital murder as the same type of mass shooting as the Buffalo supermarket massacre and the Uvalda school massacre. They say these are examples of ' one of the 233 mass shootings in the US this year' (which is where I got my "wouldn't I have heard of 236 Columbines in the last few months if they'd happened?" line from). This is not my error, they are blatent in doing this.
Because the media constantly equivocates between interpersonal murder and indiscriminate murder, despite those being very different things which happen for very different reasons. When you hear the words "mass shooting at a hospital" is your first thought of a crazed gunman spraying down nurse's stations with bullets or a targeted murder-suicide of a specific small family? And do you not see the political usefulness of people thinking the former happened when the latter happened? (Hint: in the latter case, he'd have just used a knife. In the former case... people think he'd have just stayed home for some reason, but he might well have used a knife as well.)
Bear in mind that a definition of "mass shooting" which requires 3+ deaths means that a guy killing his wife, one child, and himself is a mass shooting. Which is fine if we're talking about ideal Bayesian agents but totally dirty pool when we're talking about humans who don't realize that the term "mass shooting" is different from "like Columbine". This gets worse when you realize that the definition of mass shooting is deliberately malleable and subject to change by gun prohibitionists who change it at-will to fit The Narrative.
Gun prohibitionists routinely lie and distort the truth to fit The Narrative. This is one of the reasons why gun rights advocates seem so obstinate. "Common sense gun reform that we can all agree on" rings differently when it's coming from the people who have gaslit you and people like you for decades than it does to normies. See also: https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/
Why do you think 'mass shooting' implies 'indiscriminate'? Looking at wikipedia: it seems definitions are mainly that 3+ or 4+ people are killed, which also fits my intuition.
This isn't my interpretation. I "think" it implies that because that is literally what the media reports it as.
In today's "Five Things" wrap up at CNN, they included the Tulsa hospital murder as the same type of mass shooting as the Buffalo supermarket massacre and the Uvalda school massacre. They say these are examples of ' one of the 233 mass shootings in the US this year' (which is where I got my "wouldn't I have heard of 236 Columbines in the last few months if they'd happened?" line from). This is not my error, they are blatent in doing this.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/03/us/five-things-june-3-trnd/index.html
Because the media constantly equivocates between interpersonal murder and indiscriminate murder, despite those being very different things which happen for very different reasons. When you hear the words "mass shooting at a hospital" is your first thought of a crazed gunman spraying down nurse's stations with bullets or a targeted murder-suicide of a specific small family? And do you not see the political usefulness of people thinking the former happened when the latter happened? (Hint: in the latter case, he'd have just used a knife. In the former case... people think he'd have just stayed home for some reason, but he might well have used a knife as well.)
Bear in mind that a definition of "mass shooting" which requires 3+ deaths means that a guy killing his wife, one child, and himself is a mass shooting. Which is fine if we're talking about ideal Bayesian agents but totally dirty pool when we're talking about humans who don't realize that the term "mass shooting" is different from "like Columbine". This gets worse when you realize that the definition of mass shooting is deliberately malleable and subject to change by gun prohibitionists who change it at-will to fit The Narrative.
They have a gun control agenda to sell. And if you don't have enough crises to sell it, then you simply make more.