Even by that definition, it's three or more killings. In this case there has only been 1 killing so far, possibly 2 if the guy goes from critical condition to dead.
You just posted another definition, which also doesn't consider this a mass shooting. So neither the law nor the FBI consider this a mass shooting...
There may not be a definition for mass shooting accepted by 100% of people, but there's not a definition for sexual harassment, or sexual indecency, or even rape accepted by 100% of people either.
You're saying it's fine to publicly label anyone you want as a rapist, even if the law disagrees with you, because there is no 100% accepted definition. Is that right?
I was referencing gyrocoptic's last reply to me, in which he said:
...according to the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, signed into law in January 2013, a mass shooting is defined as a shooting with at least three victims, excluding the perpetrator.
[+]PastMinute0 points [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link
This just kinda makes you look bad, bro.
A mass shooting is a specific term describing when four or more random people are killed, not including the shooter.
Only three confirmed victims in this case, at least one of which wasn't random, so it just doesn't fit the definition. And not because of the gender.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]HelperBot_ 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]PastMinute1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Even by that definition, it's three or more killings. In this case there has only been 1 killing so far, possibly 2 if the guy goes from critical condition to dead.
[–]PlastIconoclastic 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+]PastMinute0 points [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link
Why bother with terms at all then? Who cares if someone is a rapist, sexual assaulter, or sexual harasser?
Words matter.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]PastMinute1 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
You just posted another definition, which also doesn't consider this a mass shooting. So neither the law nor the FBI consider this a mass shooting...
There may not be a definition for mass shooting accepted by 100% of people, but there's not a definition for sexual harassment, or sexual indecency, or even rape accepted by 100% of people either.
You're saying it's fine to publicly label anyone you want as a rapist, even if the law disagrees with you, because there is no 100% accepted definition. Is that right?
[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]PastMinute1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
I was referencing gyrocoptic's last reply to me, in which he said:
The Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act references "mass killings".
[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PlastIconoclastic 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link