On March 7, 2025, a new study published in JAMA Network Open claimed that about 1 in 15 American adults – nearly 7% – have been physically present at the scene of a mass shooting at some point in their lives. Even more shockingly, over 2% said they had been injured during one of those incidents. The researchers, David Pyrooz, James Densley, and Jillian Peterson, define “mass shooting” as a gun-related crime where four or more people are shot in a public setting. According to their findings, these events are far more common in everyday American life than many realize.
But as soon as the headline made the rounds, critics – especially in the gun rights community – were quick to challenge the assumptions, definitions, and methodology behind the numbers. So the question becomes: Is this 1-in-15 claim a well-founded reality or a carefully structured statistic designed to shock?
What the Study Actually Found
According to the survey, which was based on responses from 10,000 adults and aimed to be nationally representative, 6.95% of U.S. adults said they had been present at a mass shooting in their lifetime. Just over 2% said they had been physically injured – whether by gunfire, shrapnel, being trampled, or otherwise hurt during the panic. Notably, most of the reported incidents happened in the last decade, and the majority occurred in what respondents considered their local communities.
Senior author David Pyrooz, a sociologist at the University of Colorado Boulder, emphasized in a CU Boulder article by Lisa Marshall that these are not just isolated events. “These are really high numbers for this seemingly unique and small subset of gun violence,” he said, explaining that mass shootings can ripple outward to affect thousands of people – not just those hit by bullets.
The Definition Matters: What Counts as a Mass Shooting?
One major point of contention lies in how the researchers define a “mass shooting.” Unlike the FBI’s older definition that required at least four fatalities in a public place, this study uses the Gun Violence Archive’s broader definition: four or more people shot, not necessarily killed. This inclusivity brings in gang shootings, neighborhood incidents, and domestic disputes that happen in public.
Critics say that distinction drastically alters public perception. In her response video titled “1 in 15 Chance of Being in a Shooting?” gun rights commentator Liberty Doll argued that the study paints an inflated picture. “The definition includes hearing gunshots in any public space – including neighborhoods,” she noted. “It would include the people of Chicago on any given weekend.”
Who Was Surveyed?
The researchers used a multistage matched sample design via YouGov, attempting to mirror U.S. Census data across age, gender, race, and other demographics. Respondents were compensated for their time and asked to self-report their experiences with mass shootings. Although Pyrooz and colleagues defend the integrity of their sampling methods, critics question whether the sample is skewed toward lower-income individuals.
Liberty Doll, for instance, points out that nearly half the sample earned under $40,000 a year, and 20% fell below the poverty line – far higher than national averages. “Already we can tell that the participants in this study are not indicative of an actual sample of the United States,” she said. Whether this imbalance significantly affects the results is debatable, but it fuels skepticism.
A Generational Divide
One of the study’s most compelling takeaways is the stark generational difference. Generation Z – those born after 1996 – reported far higher rates of exposure to mass shootings than older generations. This trend may reflect the actual rise in mass shooting incidents over the past two decades. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there have been nearly 5,000 mass shootings in the U.S. since 2014, with over 500 per year since 2020.
In Marshall’s CU Boulder article, Pyrooz explained that this may be creating a “mass shooting generation” – a cohort growing up with lockdown drills, active shooter alerts, and news stories about school shootings. “People who grew up in the aftermath of Columbine have these unique experiences that are really distinguishable from the older population,” he said.
Location, Location, Location
The data reveals that 76% of reported incidents occurred in respondents’ local communities. The most common locations? Neighborhoods (35%), followed by bars/restaurants, schools, shopping outlets, and outdoor events. This challenges the widespread assumption that mass shootings primarily occur in places like malls or schools – those most likely to dominate media coverage.
Interestingly, Liberty Doll used this point to highlight how many of these shootings may occur in “gun-free zones” – areas where civilian firearms are typically restricted. She pointed to FBI data indicating that the vast majority of mass shootings occur in such zones and argued that gun control policies could be unintentionally making these areas vulnerable.
Injury or Chaos?
Another layer of complexity comes in the survey’s definition of “injured.” Being shot counts, of course – but so does being trampled, hit by debris, or otherwise hurt during the chaos. In his HealthDay interview, Pyrooz used the 2017 Las Vegas shooting as an example: 60 people killed, 413 wounded by gunfire – but another 454 injured during the panic. Altogether, about 22,000 people were present.
Critics like Liberty Doll argue that such inclusion artificially inflates the count of mass shooting survivors. “He is including all 22,000 people that were at that festival and all the people in the surrounding hotels…as being exposed and in the presence of a mass shooting,” she noted.
Public Health or Political Weapon?
The authors of the JAMA Network Open study argue that mass shootings represent a growing public health concern, especially given the psychological toll on survivors and witnesses. A forthcoming paper by Pyrooz and his team is expected to explore the mental health outcomes for those who were present but uninjured. Preliminary findings suggest that three-quarters of these individuals still report significant psychological distress – well above national averages.
As The Guardian noted in its coverage of the study, the authors emphasized that mass shootings are “not isolated tragedies, but rather a reality that reaches a substantial portion of the population.” This framing underscores the urgency the researchers feel in treating mass shooting exposure as a major public health issue.
But others, like Liberty Doll, suspect the study is being weaponized for political ends. She accuses gun control groups like Giffords of “pumping up the numbers” to justify more disarmament. “It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy,” she says. “These studies are used to advocate for more gun-free zones, which then make people more vulnerable to mass shootings.”
Does This Undermine Gun Rights?
From a policy standpoint, the implications of such a study are immense. If nearly 7% of Americans truly have been present at a mass shooting, that could spur calls for stricter gun control at the federal level. But if that number is inflated or loosely interpreted, it risks creating fear without offering clear solutions.
Critics like Liberty Doll believe such studies serve as the foundation for future legislation that further restricts lawful gun ownership. “Most people aren’t going to read the study. They’ll just see the headline and run with it,” she warns.
Is the Number Accurate?
So – is the 1-in-15 claim accurate? Technically, yes, according to the study’s parameters. But context is key. The definition of “mass shooting” is broader than many assume. The definition of “present” includes a wide radius of exposure. And “injury” includes both direct and indirect physical trauma. Critics are right to flag these elements as factors that could shape public opinion in a potentially misleading way.
Still, even under a generous interpretation, the finding that so many Americans have had some proximity to mass gun violence underscores a troubling reality – gun violence, and particularly high-profile mass shootings, have become a persistent presence in U.S. life.
A Complicated Picture
In the end, the study by Pyrooz, Densley, and Peterson provides a sobering look at the ripple effects of mass shootings – how many people are nearby, how many are harmed in the panic, and how the impact spreads far beyond the victims reported in headlines. But like many discussions around gun violence in America, the numbers must be interpreted with care, precision, and transparency.
Rather than dismissing the research outright or accepting it wholesale, perhaps the real takeaway is this: we need better definitions, more clarity, and a deeper public conversation about what “mass shooting” truly means – and what we should do about it.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa writes about homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Whether it’s canning vegetables or setting up a rainwater harvesting system, Lisa’s goal is to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.