No, not pulled from someones rectal area. When there weren't enough mass "killings" (I believe it was defined as at least 4 dead including the perp), the definition was changed to mass "shootings" (which I believe is now defined as at least 2) so they could prop up the stats on how dangerous it is out there. Kinda like the government defining anyone up to 26(?) as a child (including gang-bangers) so they could show how dangerous guns are to chillens.
They changed the terms to fit a pre-determined conclusion.
Liberals disgust me.
I decided not to be lazy and got off my a ... well, I got my mouse ... wait ... do computer mouses (mice?) have ...
Anyway looks like this WashPost article is the source of CCD's "mass shooting" factoid:
We’re now averaging more than one mass shooting per day in 2015By Christopher Ingraham
washingtonpost.com August 26
Aug. 26 is the 238th day of the year. And with the fatal shooting in Virginia today — in which a gunman shot himself after killing two reporters and wounding one more person — plus the shooting of four during a Minneapolis home invasion, the number of mass shooting incidents has risen to 247 for the year.
These numbers are compiled by the moderators of the GunsAreCool subreddit, a sarcastically named community that tracks gun violence in America. They define "mass shooting" as any single incident in which at least four people are shot, including the gunman. The tracker comes in for some criticism because its definition is broader than the FBI's definition, which requires three or more people to be killed by gunfire. But the broader definition is nonetheless a useful one, because it captures many high-profile instances of violence — like the recent Lafayette theater shootings — that don't meet the FBI's criteria.

The source of the stat is a gun-grabbers' site.

Big
non-shock!

And to make the VA shooting a "mass shooting" the WashPost's Ingraham had to include the murderer's act of suicide as a "shooting".

Given the number of murder-suicides one hears about, I wonder how many other suicides were included in the gun-grabbers' stats so as to inflate their "mass shootings" count (as if guns were the only means to do a murder-suicide).

It says something about the arrogance of that gun-grabbers' site's owners and contributors that they know they can publish obvious BS as factoids and know that their target info-consumers are too credulous to smoke out and call them on their games & lies. Ingraham came close to calling them out - identifying his source as anti-gun, and pointing out their definitions-changing game - but he called their redefinition "useful". But Ingraham then made the mistake of accidentally revealing their game of inflating their stats by including suicides as part of "mass shootings".
Nice to know my BS detector wasn't giving a false reading when it pegged on CCD's "mass shootings" factoid. The remaining question is whether CCD knew the gun-grabbers' and the WashPost's "mass shootings" stats were inflated or was CCD one of the credulous taken in by the gun-grabbers' and the WashPost's arrogant lies. The answer isn't critical, but I derive amusement from understanding the sources of my amusement.