I wouldn't let the trolling get to you. Instead he'll post some silly GIF, then link a study he didn't read, or more likely an abstract he didn't even understand, when even the most generous refuge one could seek still doesn't rebut the thrust of your point.
You're correct, of course. The definition of "mass shooting" has changed every time one has occurred depending on what narrative the media has wanted to push. If they are pushing the anti-2nd Amendment hysteria, they use the definition that yields the higher number of mass shootings. If they want to push the anti-conservative or anti-Christian white male angle, they use the more restrictive definitions. I've gone into depth about this on the forum in the past as I did in these three threads:
As I noted in those threads, there have been multiple official government definitions depending. Some law enforcement agencies (ex. FBI) had their own that conflicted with a formal congressional definition, but they were closely similar. Typically what varies is the total number of victims (3+), whether or not they are counted as victims if they didn't actually die, and whether or not the shooting took place in a public space. Using those more traditional definitions whites do NOT commit a majority of mass shootings even though we greatly outnumber any other distinct race in the country. Blacks do, of course. Because the liberal media realized this wasn't convenient to their narrative, they began favoring databases that tried customizing their definitions to filter out what is largely black-commited shootings such as the Mother Jones database or the Violence Project Database.
Ironically, it still doesn't work. White men still aren't the principal threat per capita. Take a look.
See what he linked? It's a study published in 2022 looking at mass shootings from 1999-2021:
So this is one of those studies that aims to restrict the dataset only to acts of a more terroristic style of violence even if the killer didn't necessarily have a political goal or radicalized mania like the 9/11 attackers, but only a personal vendetta against his victims, or no relationship at all to them. That's fine, this is traditionally what I think springs to mind for most of us when we hear the term "mass shooter" similar to Columbine. The study uses Columbine as the starting point. He probably saw this in the bullet points after he Googled it:
See that little qualifier? "Notorious". It's important. He obviously didn't comprehend that what this conveys, per the study, is that
white mass shooters are more likely to successfully kill a larger number of victims, not that they are more likely to commit mass killings.
In fact, if you look further down:
First, notice the "45 mass shootings in 30 days!" alarmism melts using this database.
104 mass shootings from April 1999 to Summer 2021 averages out to 0.39 mass shootings per month.
According to the Census, NH Whites made up 61.7% of the country in 2020. NH Blacks make up 12.4%. Of course, the number of WH has declined substantially since 2000 while the number of WH Blacks hasn't changed. NH Whites were 75.1% in 2000. NH Blacks were 12.3%. During the period in question, according to that study's own chosen data set, NH whites committed this particular definition of mass shootings 2.58x the rate of NH Blacks despite that during the date range of those crimes NH whites outnumbered NH Blacks by a factor of 5.0x-6.1x.
Thus, to summarize, even using his own chosen study, from 1999-2021, Blacks were somewhere between 1.94x-2.33x as likely to commit a mass shooting as Whites.
So don't worry about his shortbus opinions on math.
