One in 15 U.S. adults have been on the scene of a mass shooting, report finds
One out of every 15 adults in the U.S. have been present at the scene of a mass shooting, researchers have revealed.
More alarming is that over 2 percent of that group — or over five million of the 258 million adults counted in the U.S. Census Bureau in 2020 — have been injured during one.
'These are really high numbers for this seemingly unique and small subset of gun violence,' David Pyrooz, a professor of sociology and criminologist at University of Colorado at Boulder, said in a statement.
The authors also found that younger generations of Americans were significantly more likely to have been exposed than previous generations were. Gen Zers, who were born after 1996 and are in their late to mid-twenties, were at greatest risk. More than half of respondents said the incident had occurred in the last decade, which Pyrooz said led 'credence to the idea of a 'mass shooting generation.''
According to the National Gun Violence Archive, there were 505 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2024. That figure is down from 2023 when there were 659. Both figures are up significantly from 2014 - the first year the archive kept tally - when there 272 mass shootings.
The study - which was published in the journal JAMA Network Open and revealed Friday - surveyed 10,000 adults in January of last year, asking them if they had ever been 'physically present on the scene of a mass shooting.'
While there is no single, agreed-upon definition of the term 'mass shooting,' this study defined it as a gun-related crime where four or more people had been shot in a public space - similar to the one used by the Gun Violence Archive database.
Being physically present was defined 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.'
While some respondents who said they were injured had been shot, they were also hit by shrapnel or trampled in the panic that followed.
How many people die in mass shootings every year depends on the definition used. With the Gun Violence Archive's definition, and that used by study authors, 722 people died in these incidents in 2023.
There were nearly 47,000 gun deaths that year: the third-highest total on record, although it was down for the second consecutive year. In 2020, gun violence had surpassed car crashes as the No. 1 killer of children in the U.S.
Pyrooz said he was not surprised by the results of his survey, noting that the 2017 Las Vegas shooting had impacted hundreds more people than the 61 killed or 867 injured.
'That translates to about one out of every 11,000 Americans who were on the scene of that shooting alone,' said Pyrooz. 'Continue that to other events that have occurred around the country and the numbers, unfortunately, add up.'
The shootings weren't just at large events. They were in bars, restaurants, schools, shopping outlets and synagogues.
Black people and men were more likely to have witnessed a mass shooting, researchers found.
'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,' Pyrooz added. 'They also highlight the need for interventions and support for the most affected groups.'
'It's not a question of if one will occur in your community anymore, but when,' he said. 'We need to have stronger systems in place to care for people in the aftermath of this tragic violence.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
a day ago
- NBC News
Celebrity breast cancer announcements highlight rising rates in young women
Several young celebrities have announced breast cancer diagnoses in the past year — a public reminder that rates are rising among women under 50 in the U.S. Pop singer Jessie J, 37, revealed this week on Instagram that she has early-stage breast cancer and plans to undergo surgery later this month. Katie Thurston, former star of 'The Bachelorette,' has documented her journey with Stage 4 breast cancer on social media after being diagnosed earlier this year at age 34. And actor Danielle Fishel, known for her role on the '90s sitcom 'Boy Meets World,' revealed her diagnosis at age 43 to fans last summer. New breast cancer diagnoses in young women have gone up considerably in the last decade. From 2012 to 2021 — the most recent decade of data — the rate increased 1.4% annually in women under 50, compared with 0.7% annually in women 50 and up. The trend applies to all racial or ethnic groups, particularly Asian American and Pacific Islander women under 50, for whom diagnoses have risen nearly 50% since 2000. Black women have the highest rate of breast cancer before age 40 and are most likely to die of the disease. Women under 40 generally aren't advised to get mammograms unless they have a strong risk factor for breast cancer, such as a family history or genetic mutation. In that case, the American Cancer Society recommends mammograms starting at age 30, plus an annual breast MRI. Several breast cancer doctors said younger patients and their clinicians should be careful not to dismiss symptoms such as a lump or nipple discharge. 'The thought was always, if you had a change in your breast but you were a young woman, it was probably nothing,' said Dr. Rani Bansal, an assistant professor at the Duke University School of Medicine. 'As we're seeing more and more younger women get diagnosed … we need to take these cases seriously.' Dr. Oluwadamilola Fayanju, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine, said her youngest patient diagnosed with cancer was just 17. She recommended that young women with symptoms go to a center that's experienced in breast imaging. For women with an elevated risk of breast cancer, she said, 'it may be better for you to be connected with a dedicated breast provider who can keep a close eye on you and do regular exams even well before 40.' Breast cancer in young women is often more aggressive As treatment options for breast cancer have improved, the overall mortality rate among younger women with the disease declined from 2010 to 2020, according to research presented in April at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Chicago. But young women are still more likely to be diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer compared with older women. One reason could be that they're not getting screened as much, so it's harder to catch cases early. Young women are also more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which tends to spread fast and has fewer treatment options. Dr. Virginia Borges, a professor of medical oncology at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, said all women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 35 have a higher likelihood of the cancer spreading to the rest of their bodies, for reasons doctors don't fully understand. 'It's like this great big puzzle of all these different factors that can contribute to why we see these cancers behave the way they do,' Borges said. Bansal said doctors are hoping to learn more about which treatments are better suited to women under 50. 'We need more data to better tailor our treatments towards younger women,' she said. 'A lot of the studies that are done are in older women.' Lifestyle, environment, hormones There are several mysteries as to why younger women are diagnosed with breast cancer at higher rates. Doctors generally agree that multiple factors are at play, including lifestyle, hormones and environmental exposures. Diets high in ultra-processed foods or a lack of physical activity can lead to obesity, which in turn elevates one's cancer risk. Women in their 30s and 40s have also increased their alcohol consumption in recent decades, and drinking alcohol is linked to breast cancer. Exposure to environmental toxins such as air pollution, forever chemicals or microplastics could also play a role. 'By the time women now in their 40s were babies, every single baby bottle had BPA. Everyone had Teflon pans in their home. Everyone was spraying Scotchgard around their home,' said Suzanne Price, CEO of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, a nonprofit that works to eliminate exposure to toxic chemicals. Several researchers said more data is needed to definitively draw that link. 'Hopefully within the next few years, we should be having more insight into how those early life exposures drive the risk of breast cancer,' said Dr. Adetunji Toriola, a professor of surgery at Washington University School of Medicine. Some studies have suggested that chemical hair straighteners, which are predominantly used by Black women, may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Fayanju said the straighteners 'can potentially have effects on our ability to process hormones in our body and how those hormones then interact with cells in our breasts, which have receptors for those hormones.' Changes in women's reproductive lives might have some effect as well. Girls in the U.S. are starting their periods slightly earlier in life compared with decades ago. That may increase the length of time in which they're exposed to higher levels of estrogen — a hormone that in some cases can feed cancer cells. A study last year found an increase in the number of women ages 20 to 49 diagnosed with breast cancer that was responsive to estrogen. Many women are also delaying childbirth until their 30s and 40s, which increases the risk of postpartum breast cancer — cancers that occur within five to 10 years of giving birth that appear to be linked to changes in the breasts during that time. Borges estimated that there are about 18,000 new cases of postpartum breast cancer each year. 'How do you get from the millions of women who are having children without ending up with one of these breast cancers to the 18,000 or so who are going to get one of these breast cancers?' she said. 'We're still working on figuring that out. Age is important.'
Spectator
3 days ago
- Spectator
How Britain can poach America's top scientists
From the time of Newton, Britain led the world in science. That began to change in 1940, when, with the Battle of Britain raging, Winston Churchill sent the scientist Henry Tizard on a secret mission to America. His objective was to secure financial and industrial help in the fight against Hitler. His currency was British military technology, in particular the cavity magnetron, a device that made it possible to locate the enemy with radar. This wowed the Americans and achieved his objective. According to one historian, it was 'the most valuable cargo ever brought to [America's] shores.' While this was a hand-over of scientific power, it catalysed the Anglo-American scientific alliance, which has seen a flow of talent ever since between our two nations. At times there have been concerns that this might be one-way traffic: from us to them.
NBC News
3 days ago
- NBC News
How RFK Jr. is quickly changing U.S. health agencies
WASHINGTON — In just a few short months, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has begun to transform U.S. health policy: shrinking staff at health agencies, restructuring the focus of some regulators and researchers, changing Covid vaccine regulations and reshaping the mission of his department to focus more on alternative medicine. The directives are all part of the same issue set that drove a slice of health-conscious, left-leaning Americans to eventually vote for a Republican president whose favorite meal is from McDonald's, Trump and Kennedy catered to a type of voter who has grown distrustful of America's health care establishment — but possibly fomented a new type of distrust in federal health policy along the way. Bernadine Francis, a lifelong Democrat who backed Joe Biden for president in 2020 before supporting Donald Trump in 2024, told NBC News in an interview that she approves of Kennedy's efforts so far, despite his 'hands being tied' by entrenched forces in the administration and in Congress. 'From what I have seen so far with what RFK has been trying to do,' she said, 'I am really, really proud of what he's doing.' Francis is among the voters who left the Democratic Party and voted for Trump because 'nothing else mattered' apart from public health, which they — like Kennedy — felt was going in the wrong direction. Concerns about chemicals in food and toxins in the environment, long championed by Democrats, has become a galvanizing issue to a key portion of Trump's Republican Party, complete with an oversaturation of information that in some cases hasn't been proven. It's wrapped up, as well, in concerns about the Covid vaccine, which was accelerated under Trump, administered under Biden and weaponized by anti-vaccine activists like Kennedy amid lockdowns and firings in the wake of the devastating pandemic. 'We knew in order to get RFK in there so he can help with the situation that we have in the health industry, we knew we had to do this,' said Francis, a retired Washington, D.C., public school administrator, who said she left her 'beloved' career because she had refused the vaccine. 'It seemed to me, as soon as [Biden] became president, the vaccine was mandated, and that was when I lost all hope in the Democrats,' Francis told NBC News, referring to vaccination mandates put in place by the Biden administration for a large portion of the federal workforce during the height of the pandemic. There are not currently any federal Covid vaccine mandates. There have been 1,228,393 confirmed Covid deaths in the United States since the start of the pandemic, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. How RFK Jr.'s picks are changing public health agencies Dr. Marty Makary, Kennedy's hand-picked commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and a John Hopkins scientist and researcher, told NBC News in an interview that he wants to transform the agency, which he said faced 'corruption' over influence from the pharmaceutical and food industries. 'I mean, you look at the food pyramid, it was not based on what's best for you, it was based on what companies wanted you to buy,' he said, referring to the 1992 and later iterations of official government nutritional guidance. He said there would be 'entirely new nutrition guidance' released later this year, as soon as this summer. He praised the FDA's mission of research and regulation, saying the agency is 'incredibly well-oiled, and we've got the trains running on time.' He also highlighted the 75-page 'Make America Healthy Again' commission report — which focused on ultraprocessed foods and toxins in the environment — as having set 'the agenda for research' at the FDA, HHS and agencies overseeing social safety net programs such as Medicare and food stamps moving forward. (The MAHA report initially cited some studies that didn't exist, a mistake that Kennedy adviser Calley Means said was a 'great disservice' to their mission.) 'I think there's a lot we're going to learn. For example, the microbiome, which gets attention in the MAHA report, needs to be on the map. We don't even talk about it in our medical circles,' Makary said. 'The microbiome, food is medicine, the immune response that happens when chemicals that don't appear in nature go down our GI tract.' Pressed on other areas of the administration, like the Environmental Protection Agency, making decisions that run counter to the pro-regulatory ideas presented in the MAHA report, Makary said he can 'only comment on the FDA' where they are 'committed to Secretary Kennedy's vision.' But Kennedy's public health agenda goes beyond looking at the food supply and chemicals. Recently, Kennedy said in a video posted on X last month that the Covid vaccine is no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women, a change in CDC guidance that skipped the normal public review period. Days later, after critics questioned the decision and raised concerns over a lack of public data behind the move, the administration updated its guidance again, urging parents to consult with their doctors instead. Pressed about the confusion and whether Americans are now trading one side of public distrust in the health system for another, Makary defended Kennedy, who has been criticized for spreading misinformation. 'My experience with Secretary Robert F. Kennedy is that he listens. He listens to myself, he listens to Jay Bhattacharya, listens to Dr. Mehmet Oz, he listens to a host of scientists that are giving him guidance,' Makary argued, referring to the director of the National Institutes of Health and the administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, respectively. 'So he may have big questions, but the questions he's asking are the questions most Americans are asking.' The intersection of medicine and healthy lifestyle choices Dr. Dawn Mussallem, a breast cancer oncologist and integrative medicine doctor — a physician who combines conventional treatments with research-based alternative therapies — has tried to help her patients wade through medical misinformation they encounter online and in their social circles. Mussallem has an incredible story of personal survival: While in medical school, she was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer and, after conventional therapies like chemo saved her life, was diagnosed with heart failure. After undergoing a heart transplant, Mussallem ran a 26-mile marathon just one year later. 'I learned a lot in medical school, but nothing compared to what I learned being a patient,' said Mussallem, who dedicates, on average, 90 minutes each in one-on-one sessions with her patients. 'This is not about any one political choice. But we know lifestyle matters.' For example, a new study from the American Society of Clinical Oncology that finds eating food that lowers inflammation in the body may help people with advanced colon cancer survive longer. Mussallem's mission, along with her colleagues, is to elevate the modern medicine that saved her life, as well as encouraging her patients to live healthy lifestyles, including regular exercise, minimally processed foods, less screen time, more social connection and better sleep. But politics do get in the way for millions of Americans who are inundated daily with social media influencers and 'nonmedical experts,' as Mussallem puts it, who stoke fear in her patients. 'Patients come in with all these questions, fears,' she said. 'I've heard this many times from patients, that their nervous system is affected by what they're seeing happening in government.' Mussallem acknowledges that 'a lot of individuals out there' have questioned traditional medicine. For her, it isn't one or the other — it's both. 'We have to trust the conventional medicine,' she said. 'With the conventional care that marches right alongside more of an integrative modality to look at the root causes of disease, as well as to help to optimize with lifestyle, is where we need to be.'
