Several bullet casings lying on asphalt
Credit: ra-photos via Getty Images
A new study has begun to fill the black hole of knowledge on the impacts of gun violence in the US, finding that 7% of adults in a nationally representative survey have been physically present at a public mass shooting, and 2% have been injured.
Young, Black, and male respondents of the 10,000-person survey were also more likely to be impacted.
Despite fatalities from mass shooting events making up just a fraction of all gun-related deaths in the US, the research shows that US adults’ direct exposure to mass shootings is “outrageously high”.
“This study confirms that mass shootings are not isolated tragedies, but rather a reality that reaches a substantial portion of the population, with profound physical and psychological consequences,” says David Pyrooz, a criminologist from The University of Colorado at Boulder and first author of the study.
“They also highlight the need for interventions and support for the most affected groups.”
Mass shootings have become a massive health concern in the US. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there have been almost 5,000 mass shootings since 2014, and 47 so far this year.
In this study, mass shootings were defined as “gun-related crimes where 4 or more people are shot in a public space.”
Through an online market research firm (YouGov), the survey was sent out to a sample of respondents aged 18 or over. They were chosen by age, gender, socioeconomic status, and race and ethnicity to be representative of the US adult population.
From their results they estimate that approximately 1 in 15 US residents (6.95%) have been present at the scene of a mass shooting, and 2.18% sustained physical injuries, such as being shot or trampled, during such incidents.
Survey responses revealed that younger people, particularly millennials (born 1981-1996) and gen z (born 1997 or more recently), were more likely have been present at or injured in a mass shooting, compared with older generations.
“This generational difference could be partly attributable to the increasing frequency of mass shootings over time,” the authors write.
“Males were more likely than females to report direct exposure to mass shootings, which is consistent with broader patterns of gun violence exposure, where males, particularly young males, face higher risks.”
In a related commentary, Megan Ranney, dean of Yale University’s School of Public Health, suggests findings also highlight inequalities in how US patterns of gun violence in the US are acknowledged.
“Some have hypothesised that the US pays disproportionate attention to mass shootings because they affect mostly White people,” writes Ranney.
“This report shows this perception to be incorrect: as with other types of gun violence, Black adults were more likely to report exposure to mass shootings.
“The report does suggest, however, that we simply are less likely to talk about mass shootings that affect Black individuals or other marginalised groups … a lower proportion of Black (as well as Hispanic and lower-income) respondents say the mass shooting at which they were present received media attention.”
According to the survey, mass shootings are otherwise an equal opportunity problem, regardless of educational attainment or income, she adds.
The research has provided what is, to Ranney’s knowledge, the first point estimate of US adults’ exposure to mass shootings.
“Firearm injury kills more US youths than cancer or car crashes, yet we cannot reliably describe injury rates, case fatality rates, types of injury, or risks for injury,” says Ranney.
But, while the study is a high-quality estimate of US adults’ direct exposure to mass shootings, she writes that the field of firearm injury prevention still has far to go in providing reliable, repeated, accurate, and usable data.
“Although this survey is well done, it provides only an estimate,” she cautions.
“The sample is drawn from people who happened to be part of YouGov and willing to answer this survey. It excludes youths. It uses questions that have not been validated. It estimates changes in prevalence over time based on a single cross-sectional data point rather than actual longitudinal sampling.
“That this survey … is the best we can do to estimate the number of people directly affected by mass shootings – a small but important element of one of our country’s great public health threats – is, frankly, frustrating.
“Without ongoing measurement of incidence and prevalence, it is difficult to evaluate whether we should pay attention to a problem, much less the success or failure of a preventive intervention. I look forward to the day that we have better, more reliable data.”
Sign up to our weekly newsletter