<center>
![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/arbitration/Eou9iGTTvAwFYtWqpxx12bNdBgUdS2voUxopEH5UFX4XUpxwnb27qtRPj7H51jgHSC5.png)
</center>


Raise your hand if you think that mass shootings are strictly an American problem.

Well, you probably believe that because you've been consuming media which has spent the last several years operating solely off of the research of Adam Lankford.

There are significant problems with his research.

For one, he narrowed his research to Internet searches of English speaking sites. Public enemy number one among gun grabbers - John Lott - bothered to hire people who could read different languages to check the research.

Lankford, originally defined mass shootings as any shooting that indiscriminately killed four or more people while intentionally excluding acts of terrorism and, later, he excluded shootings with more than one shooter.

So, from the beginning, Lankford's study wouldn't include the Charlie Hebdo shooting as a mass shooting because there were two shooters and they were politically motivated. By Lankford's standards, none of the mass shootings of Coptic Christians in Egypt would qualify as mass shootings because there usually was more than one shooter and they were always politically motivated. 

If Lankford were honest, which he's not, the Buffalo shooting wouldn't fall into his definition of a mass shooting because the shooter wrote a whole manifesto outlining his political motivations. Lankford even listed Columbine; but, that isn't a mass shooting under his own definition because there were two shooters.

Seriously, how does anybody take this dude seriously?