> The vast majority of us picture a deranged lunatic indiscriminately shooting innocent people

Just because we picture one thing when we hear a term doesn't change the agreed upon definition of the term.

If the definition of "mass shooting" were a single person, 600 is still way too many to have in a year.

Other developed countries have fewer than 600 gun-related deaths total per year. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/10/31/1209683...

The fact that upping the bar to 4 per incident and still gets us 600 is frankly shameful.

> it would be politically inconvenient to separate them

Why? No sane person in the United States "likes" gun violence. I don't think anyone would disagree with the statement "600 incidents of a firearm killing 4 or more people is too many incidents." The question that divides people is how we ought to control it.

▲

tekknik 5 days ago | parent [-]

we would all love no crime, most of us live in the real world and understand mental illness is a thing that exists.

▲

komali2 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

You seem to be under the impression that other countries experience even a fraction of the violence Americans experience from guns.

We don't. What's happening in America with the gun violence is uniquely horrifying.

	▲	disgruntledphd2 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_... Every time. It's sad that it takes a satirical newspaper to point out the obvious truth.

▲

abustamam 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You're gonna have to explain your point better. No one said mental illness doesn't exist. Your comment has nothing to do with the definition of mass shootings. No one defines mass shooting as "a mentally ill person who shoots people." It's pretty much given that a mass shooter is mentally ill. The point of contention is what does "mass" mean.