Mass Shootings — How Do We Define It and Where Do We Draw the Line Between What Is Considered A Mass Shooting and What Isn’t?
The origin of Mass shootings
Gun violence is a significant and persistent issue in the United States, particularly in states where firearm possession is legally permitted. Originally designed for warfare and self-defense, firearms were intended to protect individuals and nations. However, over time, this purpose has become increasingly ambiguous. While law enforcement agencies are authorized to carry firearms, many private individuals also possess them for personal security. Given the inherently emotional nature of human behavior, conflicts can quickly escalate into violence. When firearms are readily accessible, the likelihood of lethal incidents increases substantially.
One of the most alarming consequences of gun violence is mass shootings. Despite their prevalence, there is no universally accepted definition of the term, as different sources provide varying criteria. According to the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, a mass shooting is defined as an incident in which two or more individuals are killed or injured. This definition serves as a general benchmark. However, media organizations often adopt a different classification. For instance, major outlets such as CNN define a mass shooting as an event in which four or more individuals are shot (injured or killed) in a single incident, occurring at the same location and time, excluding the shooter.
So, which should be the correct definition?
The question then arises: where do we draw the line in determining the correct definition of mass shootings? Human life is invaluable, and each victim is cherished and remembered by their loved ones. Therefore, arbitrarily deciding on a definition of mass shootings without careful consideration risks disrespecting the families affected by such tragedies. Endorsing the media’s definition without scrutiny may convey an unintended message of indifference toward the victims, making it appear as an insensitive stance.
Various arguments can be made regarding how mass shootings should be defined. However, it is essential to recognize that no single definition is universally correct. While many people align with the media’s interpretation, this preference does not inherently signify a lack of respect for the victims. Ultimately, individuals are entitled to their own perspectives on this complex issue. With that in mind, the following arguments serve as a foundation for further discussion:
Panic within the general populace must be taken into account
For the sake of argument, let us assume that a shooting incident involving two or more victims qualifies as a mass shooting. What are the implications of adopting such a definition? A greater number of incidents would be classified as mass shootings, leading to an increase in reported cases presented to the public. This, in turn, could heighten societal anxiety, as individuals may perceive a growing threat to their personal safety in public spaces. Such heightened fear could potentially result in widespread unrest, including protests and demands for policy changes. Given these possible consequences, it may be more pragmatic to adhere to the definition commonly used by the media, which applies a higher threshold for classification. By doing so, fewer incidents would be reported as mass shootings, thereby mitigating the risk of mass panic.
Easier police investigations if fewer cases are recorded
If we define mass shootings according to media standards, the number of cases reported would be significantly lower compared to a broader, more general definition. This distinction is critical, as an expansive definition would overwhelm law enforcement agencies with an unmanageable volume of cases, stretching their resources too thin to conduct thorough investigations. In such a scenario, the quality of investigations would inevitably decline, increasing the likelihood that perpetrators escape justice.
Another important question to consider is whether mass shootings are truly as common as they seem. Over the Fourth of July weekend alone, the United States witnessed more than 400 mass shootings. These incidents resulted in numerous injuries and fatalities. According to CNN, between Friday and Monday of that week, there were 314 fatal shootings, leaving 751 people injured. Although these numbers are alarming, they actually represent a 26% decrease from the previous year’s holiday weekend. In Chicago alone, multiple shootings occurred, with 100 victims in total — 18 of whom lost their lives.
These statistics underscore the prevalence of mass shootings in the United States, demonstrating that such incidents are not isolated occurrences but rather an ongoing crisis. The human cost of these tragedies is profound. Each victim was a person with a family, friends, and loved ones who now must endure an irreplaceable loss. The grief they experience is immeasurable, leaving lasting emotional wounds. While we may offer our thoughts and prayers, addressing the root causes of these tragedies is essential to preventing further loss of life.
