Additionally, Lott's research isn't really wrong or weird. It just defines mass shootings slightly differently then the FBI's way of doing it to make it more scientifically useful.
The usual classification is any shooting that kills four or more people. Which isn't really a useful classification because if you'll note the report Torillian posted you see a lot of "Mass shootings" are "family annihilator" murder suicides and shootings resulting in people fleeing the police.
Not really similar to the type of people who plan to go into a public place and just start shooting random people until they are stopped or killed.
Additionally, you'll note they don't consider Navy yards and such gun free zones. Even though they are, because you can't actually posses guns inside the navy yards or other military bases.
Soldiers with guns patrol the outsides, but that's like argueing a school isn't a gun free zone because the police patrol by it.
It's not really done in a weird way. So much as in the way of somebody who would run an expierment to see something would phrase things.
The question being "Are people who mass shoot aquantinces/strangers in a murder/suicide type situation more likely to pick places in which guns are not expected."
