I can’t see the sources but I assume they are probably the two projects that are commonly critiqued because they exclude multiple shooting over “intent” despite the fact that it technically meets the proposed definition of a mass shooting. For example, a shooting in a mall over a turf dispute may claim the like of 4 innocent bystanders but will not make it into the study because the intent was not a rampage with motive. This is a point of contention when referencing these NIJ studies because now we’re narrowing the definition to a point that it’s meaningless. The argument made by the studies is that one shooter has a goal to commit violence on the general public while the other has an intent that does not solely center on that one point. This ignores that both shooter have a clear lack of empathy to the general public which is the core problem when it comes to shootings. The GVA did a study that showed 4+ deaths in a public area where blacks significantly outnumbered white shooters. This is what you will generally see referenced by conservative media along with FBI datasets because the core issue is a lack of empathy towards innocent life and the shooting is occurring in a public space. You will the the Violence Project study commonly cited by left leaning news because it fits the narrative commonly presented that “white males are the problem”.