Not exactly -- jambo likes to think he is an authority on just about everything but whatever you reckon . I don't think he could correct a first graders spelling assignment .
In Australia, a 2006 paper defined a mass shooting as one in which five or more "firearm‐related homicides are committed by one or two perpetrators in proximate events in a civilian setting, not counting any perpetrators."[16]
Though there are several different definitions of a mass shooting, there are also certain inclusions and exclusions. University of Pennsylvania says no matter how many people are killed, if a shooting occurs by a foreign terrorist that is not included. Another exclusion is if 10 people are shot but only 2 die. Also if 5 people are run over by a car that does not count because no firearm was used. Some inclusions are multiple deaths caused by an armed robbery. Deaths as a result of gang wars are also sometimes included. [18]The lack of a single definition can lead to alarmism in the news media, with some reports conflating categories of different crimes.[19]An act of mass shooting is typically defined as terrorist when it “appears to have been intended” to intimidate or to coerce people;[20] although a mass shooting is not, in itself, an act of terrorism. A U.S. Congressional Research Service report explicitly excluded from its definition of public mass shootings those in which the violence is a means to an end, for example where the gunmen “pursue criminal profit or kill in the name of terrorist ideologies.”[3]
