So if they're saying basically 150 of these 154 public shooting are crime and/or gang related... Well then that seems disingenuous to me.

Your average citizen and the way the media coverage seems to portrays things - you would think we'd all have to be worried about the next sandy hook or pulse type shooting (crazy gun nutters spraying bullets into crowds). But if almost ALL the shootings are related to criminal enterprises, it seems to me that the whole "mass shooting hysteria" ought to be a whole lot less worrisome. I mean, as a law abiding citizen myself (and most other normal folk)... I don't get involved in drugs/gangs/robberies for good reason. Not getting killed is definitely one of them.

drugs/gangs, leave them out UNLESS innocent victims are involved...but ANYONE can be a victim in a robbery...innocent customers, for example, and a store employee is innocent also...

versus those which both the shooters and targets were criminal in nature.

Which then begs the question, when a Republican Congressmen gets shot doesn't that then classify both the shooter and victim as criminals?

Seems to me that your desire to remove valid data points from a demographic is disingenuous as well.

And thusly not worry about them.

Hypothetical example... if 70% of the people in my town develop lung cancer, I'd be very worried about getting cancer myself. If I then found out 95% of those people with lung cancer worked in the local mines (but I was a stenographer)... then I wouldn't be quite so worried about acquiring lung cancer.

So when I hear the media and activist groups harp on "nearly a mass shooting every day" ... I am alarmed. When you tell me that 97.4% of those mass shooting incidents are likely gang/drug/robbery related then I am quite a bit less concerned about myself or an acquaintance becoming a mass shooting victim. because I nor my acquaintances are involved in violent crime.

It matters.