4

I keep seeing a claim on social media claiming something to the effect of:

[First world country] has had [small number] mass shootings since [18whatever]
The US has had 7 since Monday.

I'm assuming that they're counting shootings differently for each country to get such a biased outcome, but I can't see where the number 7 came from.

closed as unclear what you're asking by Sklivvz Jun 13 '16 at 7:45

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • I don't know about Canada, but it looks like there were 10 in the US in the week before 13th June, and 14 in the week before 12th, defined as "4+ victims injured or killed excluding the perpetrator, one location" - gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting - to get it down as low as 7, I imagine they must be counting only "deadly" shootings where multiple people were shot and injured and also at least one non-perpetrator was killed? Do any of these comments have more specific wording? – user56reinstatemonica8 Jun 13 '16 at 7:44
  • 9
    We've had similar questions in the past and they didn't work because people started arguing about the meaning of "mass shooting". Please find a specific claim that includes data so this can be answered definitely instead of speculated on. – Sklivvz Jun 13 '16 at 7:47
  • 1
    Essentially it all depends on what you mean by 'mass shooting'. This article gives a good explanation of why numbers vary and what the differences are: cbc.ca/news/world/mass-shootings-us-numbers-1.3349917 – DJClayworth Jun 13 '16 at 13:16
  • 1
    We could also just treat the definition problem as a red herring and present all the data. People love to find reasons to argue about definitions, cause they know how to do that. – user30557 Jun 13 '16 at 15:22
  • 3
    The claim is widespread and, by normal definitions, notable. The raw data should be accessible and definitions should not be a barrier to interpretation. For example, 4 or "more people shot" seems reasonable but if the raw data is there than readers can adjust the total to their own definition. A good answer would explain the definition and the raw data leaving no ambiguity. – matt_black Jun 13 '16 at 15:43

Browse other questions tagged .