Well zero of those were someone taking a gun into a public area without a plan for who to kill other than racking up a body count; they all had targets, and a couple had additional casualties. So depending on who you talk to and the definition used depends on what you allow.
Your problem is more along the lines of what I addressed: people tend to change the definition based on what they are saying. If you use a conservative definition for what a mass shooting is to get 0 mass shootings in Australia (by using say mass gun murders or gun massacres excluding family and gang affiliation) then you can’t say there has been a mass shooting for every day of the year in the US each year. If you say there have been a dozen mass shootings in Australia since then, then you can say there have been over a thousand in the United States in the same timeframe.
Setting the definition is important, and sticking to it is the only way to hold a conversation.
