But, I can see the logic of including the mass shooting of family members. In fact it makes more sense to include those shootings than to exclude them based on the shooters relationship to the victims.

There's a fine and subtle distinction between a mass shooter, who sets out with the intent to hurt or kill as many people as possible, and someone who wants to just execute a specific group of people. Granted, in terms of end result they're fairly similar, but motive in shootings is definitely something we shouldn't disregard casually.

Otherwise it's a case of being pretty dishonest.

The FBI had a certain definition which, regardless of completeness, was at least consistent year to year.

I just don't think it's a big difference between violence on a family member and violence on strangers or people in the work place. I would like those kinds of shootings in the category of mass shootings, but they can sub categorize them between family, work place, and strangers. They can put in gang mass shootings as well. It might even be good to do this as we could get a better idea of what kinds of violence we are dealing with here.

It might be a little scary though if it turns out you are more likely to be killed by a family member than a foreign or domestic terrorist.

In the last year alone. If you're trying to analyze, you look at the trend, not the average. When Bill Gares walks into a room, on average, everyone's a millionaire. That stat means nothing.

You're right about the overall trend for the purposes of analysis, though. Trending data, while not exactly an accurate predictor, is always a purposeful data set to keep in consideration.

A pair of township boys are accused of shooting four others with a pellet gun, police said.

Nobody was seriously hurt by the 11- and 12-year-old boys who shot the pellet gun at them on April 25

...chosen to use the term "mass" in connection with murders. The term, when use conventionally, means a great deal or an overwhelming number. For example, 'A fire started in the nightclub and there was a mass exodus shortly after the smoke appeared.'

The FBI has no "mass shooting" qualification or terminology to refer a shooting incident where multiple people are targeted and/or wounded. An event where 4 or more people are shot and killed would be described as a mass murder by the FBI.

The media has often developed an affinity for dangerous or ominous sounding terms.

I suppose it sells newspapers.

... They must be redefining the definition of "mass shooting". The only way to know if the new numbers are better or worse is to go back and apply the new method to the preceding couple of decades.

We're getting a new number, by itself and without context, and we're supposed to freak out about it.

This Reddit thing sounds like SecMo's Google dumps vastly amplified.

Put bluntly, my baby girl has been a handful for the past few days and looks to be continuing into today. I have neither the time nor inclination to deal with more than one irrationally screeching child at a time.

So feel free to take a crack at it yourself, if you wish.