The definition of mass murder is all over the place.
Feds considered at least 4 dead to be a mass murder.
Using that, the data is cherry picked to make a point.
Then he leaves the data to prove the point.
If I didn’t know better, seems like RAT math.
I agree. Though I don’t have a problem with the way the author was using the statisics since he defined his parameter as “where the death toll went into the double digits” which means he is defining his parameter and being consistent with how he uses it.
That said, I wonder if other people (including the government) who analyze this type of thing have a fluid definition of the term “mass shooting” and sample the various levels until they find one that fits their agenda and use that one without defining it.