You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple?
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple?
I always thought it was the food that killed people. I guess I have another reason avoid fast food.
I love guns, but they kill people, just like cars do. So I think they should be registered and people should have to go through safety training and a licensing process to use them, just like cars
Why exactly should an individual need a license to protect himself from tyranny?
Because it's a deadly weapon and violent and insane people shouldn't have access
Gun nuts struggle to understand this because they love their guns and are responsible.
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple?
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple?
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."
Just line up all the pussified libs who want gun control and shoot em in their gaybob faces. death for those who piss on our constitution (sorry freeloader, ex, J, etc.) No more debate! Nothing left but law abiding Americans with free speech, liberty and guns. Pup for Pres!
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple?
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple?
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."
"People who knew Lee's first victim, Terri Grzebielski, said she was a physician's assistant at Moscow Family medicine. They said she also played in some local bands and that she was full of life and very well liked. Neighbors said she leaves behind a husband, another adopted child and a biological child. The second victim, David Trail, was a businessman. He worked as a financial consultant for Northwest Mutual. The third victim, Belinda Niebuhr, was a veteran manager at the Arby's on Peterson. The vice president for the local company that owns that Arby's said her loss is a huge hit for their family."
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple?
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."
"People who knew Lee's first victim, Terri Grzebielski, said she was a physician's assistant at Moscow Family medicine. They said she also played in some local bands and that she was full of life and very well liked. Neighbors said she leaves behind a husband, another adopted child and a biological child. The second victim, David Trail, was a businessman. He worked as a financial consultant for Northwest Mutual. The third victim, Belinda Niebuhr, was a veteran manager at the Arby's on Peterson. The vice president for the local company that owns that Arby's said her loss is a huge hit for their family."
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple?
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."
"People who knew Lee's first victim, Terri Grzebielski, said she was a physician's assistant at Moscow Family medicine. They said she also played in some local bands and that she was full of life and very well liked. Neighbors said she leaves behind a husband, another adopted child and a biological child. The second victim, David Trail, was a businessman. He worked as a financial consultant for Northwest Mutual. The third victim, Belinda Niebuhr, was a veteran manager at the Arby's on Peterson. The vice president for the local company that owns that Arby's said her loss is a huge hit for their family."
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple?
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."
"People who knew Lee's first victim, Terri Grzebielski, said she was a physician's assistant at Moscow Family medicine. They said she also played in some local bands and that she was full of life and very well liked. Neighbors said she leaves behind a husband, another adopted child and a biological child. The second victim, David Trail, was a businessman. He worked as a financial consultant for Northwest Mutual. The third victim, Belinda Niebuhr, was a veteran manager at the Arby's on Peterson. The vice president for the local company that owns that Arby's said her loss is a huge hit for their family."
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple?
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."
"People who knew Lee's first victim, Terri Grzebielski, said she was a physician's assistant at Moscow Family medicine. They said she also played in some local bands and that she was full of life and very well liked. Neighbors said she leaves behind a husband, another adopted child and a biological child. The second victim, David Trail, was a businessman. He worked as a financial consultant for Northwest Mutual. The third victim, Belinda Niebuhr, was a veteran manager at the Arby's on Peterson. The vice president for the local company that owns that Arby's said her loss is a huge hit for their family."
Technically it was January, I was thinking December. Either way, more than one person was shot.
Yeah. 3 different shooting incidents. 3 different crime scenes. Not a mass shooting. Wheelhouse stuff. It's about what's factual. GTFO.
"Broadly speaking, the term refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence, but there is no official set of criteria or definition for a mass shooting, according to criminology experts and FBI officials."
Comments
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple?
The second victim, David Trail, was a businessman. He worked as a financial consultant for Northwest Mutual.
The third victim, Belinda Niebuhr, was a veteran manager at the Arby's on Peterson. The vice president for the local company that owns that Arby's said her loss is a huge hit for their family."
http://www.krem.com/story/news/local/latah-county/2015/01/10/shooting-arbys-moscow-idaho/21569979/
Technically it was January, I was thinking December. Either way, more than one person was shot.
HTH