• SeaJ
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Ummm…why would you not consider that a mass shooting? Do you not have neighbors? It kind of seems like that really could be anybody considering many people have at least one unhinged neighbor around them.

    • @jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      A mass shooting happens in a public place with random targets, making your average person feel victimized even if they weren’t there. It’s an act of terror, the murder is ancillary.

      In the case of a targeted killing at a private home? That’s just murder.

      • kase
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Where does your definition come from? I’m not saying it’s wrong, it’s just not the same as what I and people I know use. For context, I live in the US.

      • SeaJ
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well that’s nice that you made up your own definition…

        Your distinction can make sense but not how you are looking at it. Saying murder is ancillary is ridiculous. The killers in those cases are not just wildly shooting in the air and it just so happens to hit people and kill them. Killing them is their intent. You could make an argument to split our random mass shootings vs targeted but there is still a pretty obvious base reason for both of those: ease of access to guns.

        • @jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -11 year ago

          Of course, it doesn’t do any good to say “their definition is bullshit” if I’m not willing to provide an alternative.

          We need to distinguish terrorist level events where one or more nuts with a gun enter a public space with the intention of causing as much mayhem as possible than other forms of gun crimes where armed people do end up shooting, but that was not their stated purpose, it just worked out that way.