The Data Behind ‘Mass Shootings,’ And Why Democrat Proposals Aren’t Likely To Help

The Daily Wire reported earlier this week that “Ten people were killed in a tragedy that unfolded in a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado on Monday afternoon after a man walked into a King Soopers store and opened fire.”

In the aftermath of dreadful mass shooting events, the response from Democrats is usually twofold. First, they reference a supposed lack of action to previous tragedies, such as Andrew Cuomo’s tweet, “After Sandy Hook we said: Let this terrible tragedy finally be the wake-up call for action. And we said it again. And again. As the years go by, the death count goes up—and still nothing happens. We need NATIONAL gun safety laws. Now.” Second, they propose a host of legislative suggestions, such as the resurgence of Biden’s demand that “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” be banned. 

While we should certainly investigate such heinous acts and determine whether there are legislative responses which can be implemented to prevent such crimes from being committed, the importance of first understanding the problem of gun violence is often intentionally dismissed in favor of a “we must act now” mentality. Sacrificed in favor of immediate action are data-based decisions which are both constitutional and likely to succeed.

In order to understand the problem being discussed, it’s important to understand the data behind gun violence. Specifically, in this case, the data behind mass shootings which, if analyzed honestly, indicate that the “commonsense” solutions being proposed by Democrats are far from common sense.

What proportion of gun violence incidents are “mass shooting” events?

What makes answering this question complicated is that there is no set definition of a “mass shooting event.” Often, the definition is manipulated as needed, based on political objectives.

For example, the FBI defines “active shooter incidents” as “one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.” According to this definition, 85 people — excluding the perpetrators — were killed in “active shooter incidents” in 2018. The Gun Violence Archive, however, defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people — not including the shooter — are shot or killed. By this definition, 373 people died in mass shooting events in 2018.

According to data from UC Davis, 13,958 people died from firearm homicide in 2018, accounting for 35.1% of total deaths from firearms.

If we take the FBI’s definition, that means 0.6% of the total number of victims of gun violence were killed during a mass shooting. If we take the broader Gun Violence Archive definition, that percentage rises to just over 2.6%.

Regardless of the definition of mass shootings — and noting that every homicide due to gun violence is a tragedy — mass shootings make up a tiny proportion of all gun violence deaths.

What weapons are used in mass shootings?

According to Statista, the most common weapons used during mass shooting events are handguns. Between 1982 and 2021, based on 169 mass shooting incidents, 95 were carried out using handguns (56.2%), 48 were carried out with rifles (28.4%) and 26 were carried out with shotguns (15.4%).

Many of the most deadly mass shooting events during this period, according to Mother Jones, did involve “semiautomatic rifles,” often referred to as “assault weapons.” For example, the deadliest mass shooting event — the Las Vegas shooting on October 1, 2017 which killed 58 people and injured 546 — involved multiple semi-automatic and modified fully automatic rifles. The second deadliest — the Pulse nightclub shooting in 2016 which killed 49 people and injured 53 — involved a semi-automatic rifle and handgun. The third deadliest, however, did not involve a rifle — the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 which killed 32 and injured 23.

Indeed, the list provided by Mother Jones shows multiple mass shooting events which did not involve a semi-automatic rifle. It should be noted that many of the deadliest instances did involve semi-automatic rifles.

Would the proposed changes have prevented such attacks, and could they prevent them in the future?

This is the most important question when it comes to the legislative reaction to mass shooting events. After all, without understanding the data behind mass shootings and understanding the motivations driving such behavior, how can elected officials expect to realistically solve the issue at hand?

The first piece of data to understand when answering this question relates to the number of guns which are present in the United States. According to the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey, it is estimated that there are 393 million guns in the United States. On a pragmatic level, this means that guns are a reality of existence in the United States, whether you like it or not. The natural outcome, therefore, is that guns will be available to those who really want them.

This is not, of course, to posit that those who arguably should be refused access should therefore be permitted to obtain them easily. However, this is where the specific legislation being proposed must come under scrutiny, and when the previously discussed data on gun violence becomes hugely relevant.

It is an undeniable statistical fact that mass shootings are — while undeniably tragic and appalling events — rare when we consider the size of the United States population and their comparative regularity alongside other forms of gun violence. It’s also valid to argue, though, that any form of homicide should be actively prevented, and so the rarity of such crimes is not a reasonable argument against inaction.

This then leads us to look at the specific actions the Democrats wish to take. Banning “assault weapons” or “large capacity magazines” would be unlikely to prevent someone from committing a crime with another weapon — demonstrated by the occurrence of mass shooting events which use handguns or shotguns — while removing the right of the vast majority of law-abiding citizens who possess such weapons without incident. Imposing stricter background checks may seem more reasonable, but makes the flawed assumption that existing government systems are working — there are multiple cases where the perpetrators of mass shooting events obtained guns despite their legal inability to do so — while forgetting the fact that guns are  available to those who seek them out.

This is simply to say that the simplicity of the “commonsense” solutions proposed by Democrats ignore real data and real problems, often in favor of the apparent desire to act swiftly.

***

Ultimately, we all agree that we should reject all forms of gun violence resulting in the injury or death of innocent victims. However, if we want to go beyond virtue signaling platitudes and opportunistic calls for “action” and move towards real progress, it would help if our elected officials understood the data. Until they do, and adjust their demands accordingly, it is likely that the only change will be the continued partisan nature of the debate over the right to keep and bear arms.

Ian Haworth is an Editor and Writer for The Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter at @ighaworth.

The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases