[CONTENT NOTE: mass shootings and shooters, violent misogyny, rape culture.]
First, when I use the word misogyny, by way of definition I incorporate by reference the concept of entitlement. It may be directed to women’s deference, obedience, attention, decisions, bodies, privacy, place in a hierarchy (such as a business), perceived or actual safety (relative to men), and/or umpteen kazillion other aspects that I cannot think of right now on account of the blinding rage. So whatever else its definition may encompass, it encompasses at least some form of gender-based entitlement.
Second, the definition of mass shooting lacks consensus, to put it mildly. Broadly speaking, it requires a single shooter, a minimum of three (or four) victims, which may (or may not) include the shooter, in a public place, in essentially the same geographic location with shots fired close together in time. Again, broadly speaking, it does not include foreign terrorist attacks, or incidental homicides such as multiple killings during a bank robbery.
Interestingly, the common caveat that a mass shooting must occur in a public place means that incidents where a shooter kills his wife, girlfriend, or ex, her children, other family member(s) and possibly himself (odds are 50-50 there) does not meet the definition of mass shooting.
I wonder why that is?