So, while doing some digging to determine WHEN the phrase "mass shooting" ever had a single time when the majority defined it by "media's standards" and to see any changes to their own definition since the FBI does not have a defined one, I came across this.

https://archive.org/details/794705-mass-shootings-report/page/n21/mode/2up?q=%22definition+of+a+mass+shooting%22&view=theater

Read the very bottom of page 18 of the document (Says 20 for some reason under the actual document, but us the pg number OF document) when RESPONSE begins then read onto the next page.

If I am reading it correctly, the reason "mass shooting" is defined is the way it is, is so that the FBI can come in and take over local jurisdiction law enforcement and handle the cases.. excuse me, "assist" in these cases. Generally, shootings would be left for local law enforcement to handle; what is the cost difference in having the FBI step in MUCH more than really needed? And how greater can an agenda be pushed when it is publically announced that an FBI investigation is being conducted rather than just local law enforcement handling a LOCAL investigation?

This whole thing is worth a read touching on how funding had been cut from school programs such as Safe and Drug Free Schools and Committee Act funds went from $435MIL to $65 in just three years and discuss how those who commit school attacks have had behavior issues, felt bullied, been attacked, etc.

"The law enforcement and public health fields have lengthy histories of applying preventative approaches to their work. However, the utility of widely employed preventative measures in these areas to fight public mass shootings is unclear. It appears that intelligence-led policing fails to address this threat" (pg 36 of doc)