If you think about it, Mother Jones also decided on their own version of mass shooting, that it would be 4 or more killed but gang violence, domestic violence and robberies don't count.

That's also extremely fallacious reasoning, if someone walks into a grocery store and kills 9 people but takes the cash drawer with them on the way out, does that "not count" because it was just a botched robbery?

It's also very poor to only count deaths. Like I wrote elsewhere (and something you guys already know): Improved medical treatment is definitely obfuscating the number when you look at straight murders, which is another reason why shootingtrackers reasoning does a much better job than just tracking deaths. If you die or not has a lot to do with how quickly emergency services can get to you and how good they are at dealing with gunshot wounds, which lets face it, American hospitals are the best in the world at it.

It's also important to recognize that just because you don't die from a gunshot wound doesn't mean you won't suffer a lifetime of dealing with a debilitating or disfiguring injury. In some cases people ended up dead 10-20 years later and the cause of death is ruled a homicide due to the fact that complications from the primary injury was the primary cause of death.

In many cases the number of mass shootings using the Mother Jones criteria have a hell of a lot to do with how fast emergency response crews get there and nothing to do with gun violence.

p.s., see if you can get your own op-ed in NYT or Forbes (I know Forbes does a lot of opinion stuff and their contributors browse reddit all the time) and go over it.