Talk:Mass shooting

Poor source given in Sex and Race section
Regarding this paragraph: "A study by Statista showed that 65 out of 116 (56%) U.S. mass shootings in a period from 1982 to 2019 involved "white" shooters,[55] roughly in line with the roughly 60% of the U.S. population regarded as white in 2018.[56] According to a database compiled by Mother Jones magazine, the race of the shooters is approximately proportionate to the overall U.S. population, although Asians are overrepresented and Latinos underrepresented.[52]"

Statista is a very poor source. All information is hidden behind a paywall. Additionally, it seems to be pretty obvious that the source Statista uses is the Mother Jones database referred to in the very next sentence of this paragraph. That is because Statista has 121 incidents, where Mother Jones also has 121. Mind you, the 121 figure is not some published agreed upon number but one Mother Jones has selected based on certain criteria. Therefore this paragraph appears to be pulling from multiple sources, but is in fact the same source.

Removal of perpetrators section
There was no edit summary given for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_shooting&curid=31883778&diff=1041527226&oldid=1039773372 Any particular reason for the removal? - Scarpy (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess it is because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the perpetrators section is only meant to give the characteristics of mass shooters, rather than giving a list (List of rampage killers already does the job of giving a list of mass shooters pretty well). And unnecessary mentions of the names of mass shooters can cause contagion.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This sentence appears to contradict itself to a casual reader
"The Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012 defines mass killings as three or more killings in a single incident, however the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012 does not define mass shootings"

It took me three readings ... and for the third reading I copied the entire sentence into a text editor, placing the second half of the sentence directly below the first half before I noticed there is in fact no contradiction.

The difference is "killings" vs. "shootings".

It is a long sentence, and there are twenty-three words between "killings" and "shootings". By the time I got to the end of the sentence the subtlety was lost on me. -bobB (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed, whoever wrote that seems to think the reader should understand why "shooting" needs to be specified, but since anyone killed in a shooting is also a killing, everything after the comma seems vague and unnecessary. I think it can be dropped. 24.251.236.40 (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed it, however if the point was just to clarify that it's not specifically about shootings (the article's scope) then I would suggest changing it to something like "The IAVCA does not specifically define mass shootings, but defines mass killings as...". 24.251.236.40 (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 102
— Assignment last updated by 6ftblexican (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Lead image
@Tobiasi0: I noticed you changed the lead image of the article. While I do not intend on reverting this decision, I would merely like to ask your reasoning for this decision considering that the previous image seemed more representative of the concept of mass shooting as it was direct camera footage of a mass shooting (not a graphic picture). ― Howard • 🌽33 17:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * My main intention is to obtain an image which isn't that fuzzy and has fewer artifacts, because security footage usually looks like garbage. I wouldn't mind changing it to another picture, even if it is graphic (that shouldn't matter in an encyclopedic article imho). However, I haven't found something appropriate and still representative. I think the previous image was somewhat representative, but in the end it was just a blurry guy holding a firearm – even if he committed a mass shooting at that very moment, there was nothing that directly indicated the concept of a "mass shooting" – it could've symbolized gun laws or a specific gun manufacturer as well. Meanwhile I considered something like a training picture as it seems more direct while still meeting basic quality criteria. Other possibilities include images of police barriers or other active shooter guidance.The current image is the result of my search for something that indicates a dangerous situation that can cost several lifes like in a mass shooting. I would appreciate your input to this. –Tobias (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:OMIMG: "a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar, horrifying, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner, i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." I take this to mean that we should ideally use an image of a mass shooting that doesn't feature gore. A possible exception to this might be images which show corpses, but not blood or wounds.
 * While the fuzziness of the image would obviously disqualify it from becoming a featured picture, I believe that it should not matter if the general subject of the image can be understood from a glance. Indeed, mass shooting incidents are usually recorded in security footage, so I wouldn't be surprised if people automatically register such a picture as a mass shooting. For this reason, I believe security camera footage of an active shooter is the most acceptable depiction.
 * If the low quality of the image is not something you can compromise on, then I would be satisfied with a drill of an active shooter situation:
 * ― Howard • 🌽33 20:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)