One in 15 Americans has witnessed a mass shooting, a new study shows, revealing the depth and impact of the epidemic of gun violence that has washed over the US in recent decades.
The study found that about 7% of US adults have been present at the scene of a mass shooting in their lifetime, and more than 2% have been injured during one, according to new a report from the University of Colorado Boulder.
Since 2014, there have been nearly 5,000 mass shootings documented nationwide, with more than 500 occurring annually since 2020, according to the Gun Violence Archive.
The percentage of Americans who have witnessed mass shootings is greater than the percentage of Americans who are trans
But they only seek to legislate one of the two
This is a misleading headline. Obviously a mass shooting involves a mass of people so this is pretty localized, much higher in areas around those shootings but much lower in the rest of the country. It makes people in other countries think they will step off the plane into a shootout.
makes people in other countries think they will step off the plane into a shootout.
They should probably not be stepping off a plane into the US right now anyways. It’s not safe for non USians to visit.
It’s not even safe for many Americans. But what other choice do they have, when leaving is so prohibitively expensive and they’re trapped living paycheck to paycheck?
Thousands of people enter the US every day for work, family, commerce, etc., most without incident.
I’ll agree it’s not safe if you come here with the intent of making it your home without going through the proper channels, or even working without getting a proper visa. I don’t see how someone traveling to America for a short visit is somehow unsafe. And yes, things are messed up, but they’re not plucking people off of planes and imprisoning them, they’re plucking people out of homes they’ve lived in for years without being properly documented.
No, the title is completely accurate.
7% of living American adults have witnessed a mass shooting at least once in their lifetimes.
Mass shootings are increasingly common, all over the US.
The paper the article is based on defines a mass shooting as 4 or more struck by a bullet, which is roughly a compromise, average of widely used but not perfectly standardized definitions of a mass shooting.
This study was concerned with direct exposure to mass shootings, which were defined as “gun-related crimes where 4 or more people are shot in a public space, such as a school, shopping mall, workplace, or place of worship.” This definition was a compromise between the Congressional Research Service’s definition of a mass public shooting17 and the Gun Violence Archive’s mass shooting definition,2 designed to be inclusive of individuals who were injured and accessible to the public.
Here’s the paper, two links deep from the article.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2831132
“1 in 15” implies that you can ask 15 people and find one. Most Americans know more than 15 people and don’t know anyone who has witnessed a mass shooting. A small percentage know a lot of people who have.
No, that is not how statistics nor language work.
1 in 15 means that out of all American adults, 1 in 15 have been on the scene of at least one mass shooting.
Its a broad overview, and says nothing about your or any particular person’s chance of then knowing someone who’s been at a mass shooting within a tiny sample size of 15 people.
You are inserting more complex kind of analysis about demographic / locale / social network specificity into a statement that does not actually imply that, at all, and you seemingly don’t understand the concept of sample sizes and statistical significance: You need a very large, unbiased sample set to be able to draw broader conclusions… a sample size of 15 people is not sufficient.
The chance that any random person in a large and varied population knows someone with green eyes is not the same calculation or chance a random person in that same large and varied population will have green eyes.
Go look at the paper and you can find Table 3, which actually looks at the likelihoods, broken down by varying demographic factors.
There was no investigation into ‘how many people do you know who’ve witnessed a mass shooting’.
That was not a question that was asked, the study did not investigate that.
It is 1:30 AM and I am too tired to give your a crash course on statistics, maybe try SkillShare or find a textbook or wiki page or community college course or something.
Further:
A few years ago, I was walking along a side walk near a gaggle of 10+ people, late at night, maybe 100 ish feet from them.
Car screeched in, did a drive by with a krink, an AK pistol, shot a bunch of them.
That was a mass shooting.
Congrats, you presumably know 15 or more people, one of them is now me, I was present at a mass shooting, you now know someone present at a mass shooting, as does everyone reading this comment.
The headline isn.t misleading, you had bad reading comprehension and are unable to face the fact that the country is a violent shithole. Cope harder.
What a load of horseshit.
7% of US adults have been present at the scene of a mass shooting
No way in hell. I’m a gun nut, in the South. I’ve worked long hours in South Chicago. Never seen a gun fired in anger. Hell, I’ve hardly ever seen a gun in public that wasn’t on a cop. Of all the people I’ve met in my 54-years walking the Earth, I know exactly one who was shot, and he was asking for it, begging for it.
more than 2% have been injured during one
Oh FFS. So 1-in-50 Americans have been hurt? In a “mass shooting” no less?!
And let’s define mass shooting. Note the numbers from Mother Jones, not exactly a conservative rag now are they? Fine, for argument’s sake let’s go with the most broad definition. I’m not sure it’s possible to cram that many witnesses (7% of 330,00,000 Americans = 23,100,100 witnesses) around those shootings, even spread over decades.
So what were the questions in this scientific poll?
“physically present” as “in the immediate vicinity of where the shooting occurred at the time it occurred, such that bullets were fired in your direction, you could see the shooter, or you could hear the gunfire”
Likely people answering, “Yes, I’ve heard gunfire, I think, maybe.”
2.18 % of respondents said they had been injured, which not only includes having been shot, but also struck by shrapnel or trampled by people fleeing the scene or suffering other injuries as they sought to escape
Oh my fuck me with this BS. What’s sad is that people, particularly non-Americans, will read the headline, believe it, and move on without a single question.
Here’s the study, if you bother to click two links deep from this posted article.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2831132
They define a mass shooting as 4+ people struck with a bullet.
2% of people report being injured because being trampled in a stampede or struck from a ricochet or bullet fragment counts as an injury.
Stampede and ‘crowd-squeeze’ / ‘crowd-crush’ injuries are quite common in densely crowded areas where a shooting, or fire, or something incites a general panic and rush to flee, and can cause as much or more deaths and injuries in very dense crowds than the actual immediate danger being fleed from.
…
Maybe actually read the methodology before constructing a strawman version of it and then tearing that down because your personal experience doesn’t match broader data.
Your caricatured criticism of how they obtained the data, how they structured the survey, is completely baseless and innacurate.
You say you’re 54, so by the study’s definition, you are Gen X, and are thus about twice as likely to have never been present for a mass shooting as a Millenial, about three times as likely to have never been present at a mass shooting as Gen Z.
See Table 3.
…
You’re doing the stereotypical boomer thing, making up baseless nonsense critiques and assuming everyone involved is comically incompetent to justify your gut reaction.
The reason surveys are done is because you can’t actually have any idea about broad social patterns when your only actual data point is the anecdote of your single life and its experiences.
What’s actually sad is how confident you are in your own baseless, made up strawman criticisms and personal incredulity.
If you think your criticisms have merit, I look forward to your own academically published paper taking down the specific methodological flaws you seem to think exist in a paper written by 3 PhDs in the fields of Sociology and Criminology, who are well trained in statistics and survey methodology.
Untill then, I’ll be laughing at the horseshit level critique you’ve thus far presented.
You say you’re 54, so by the study’s definition, you are Gen X, and are thus about twice as likely to have never been present for a mass shooting as a Millenial, about three times as likely to have never been present at a mass shooting as Gen Z.
See Table 3.Exactly. I’m in my mid 30’s and know several people who have witnessed mass shootings. I have personally been under active shooter lockdowns multiple times. Hell, my former roommate was shot in the ass by one at a music festival. This person saw “7% have witnessed an active shooting” and immediately called bullshit, because they’re part of the other 93% and are incapable of imagining anything outside of their (extremely narrow) lived experience. And that’s some real boomer attitude.
And let’s define mass shooting.
Last time I discussed this matter on reddit, before I deleted all my comments and left, the person I was arguing with said something like:
More than four or more people in public space? That could include a routine gas station robbery gone wrong.
This is a completely normal statistic. I heard it’s even higher in Canada. /s
Those numbers seem really high. I live in a city with a lot of gun violence; I hear gunshots weekly, but I have never witnessed a shooting of another person. I have seen videos of local gun violence online and in the news, but I have a hard time believing it is that prevalent.
The University of Colorado researchers defined “physically present” as “in the immediate vicinity of where the shooting occurred at the time it occurred, such that bullets were fired in your direction, you could see the shooter, or you could hear the gunfire”.
Given how loud a gunshot is, that is a very wide net to cast. Still a remarkable statistic though.
Well that’s more than enough to feel major effects on your mental health
It is, but if someone said to me they were involved in a shooting, and I later found out they’d heard the shots from a block away, I’d definitely look at them sideways.
This isn’t news. Since the second amendment’s Inception, it has never been used for its intended purpose.
There was an invasion of 'Mercan Government buildings in recent years and no-one took guns. Had they believed in the second amendment, that wouldn’t have been true.
I make no judgement as to whether that invasion was right or wrong.
Biden served out his term as expected as a person deep in dementia; a lesson about 'Merca to the whole world. That second amendment is just for school kids to shoot each other in school corridors, because someone cut you up in traffic or so one drug dealer can steal drugs from another drug dealer.
I write as a Brit being fucked over by an authoritarian Marxist government. Somehow we got infected by Woke from 'Merca (anyone else getting the irony there?) and all sides of our legislative bodies caught it.
But the icing on the cake is finding out that, as the world watched Russia invade Ukraine to help recreate the USSR, Trump is a Russian asset but in the different way that Biden was.
Where is your second amendment now, Mercans? Answer: same place it always was.
