When it comes to reporting news on shootings and gun deaths, the numbers don’t lie…or do they? It’s hard to say when the numbers and measurements don’t even match and groups with an agenda twist the definitions of “mass shooting” to help inflate the numbers.
There were 648 mass shootings in 2020, according to the Gun Violence Archive. Everytown claims there were 636, but the FBI says there were 50. Four additional groups have their own data. None of it agrees.
Clearly, the gun-ban industry has figured out that by offering mass shooting data sets – regardless of their accuracy – it will increase mentions by the legacy media. In fact, the more wildly inflated their numbers, the more likely their group will be cited in news stories, which leads to increased fundraising.
There are two reasons for the large discrepancies in the groups’ findings: how they define a mass shooting and how they gather the data. The Gun Violence Archive has the least realistic definition and the shoddiest collection methods. The GVA defines a mass shooting as anytime four or more people are even slightly wounded by gunfire. The group doesn’t rule out shootings that evolve from a domestic dispute or those that are gang related. The GVA gathers their data from spurious sources, such as social media and cable TV news. As a result, the GVA leads the pack in terms of media mentions. They have even been cited by the Biden-Harris administration.
Most Americans would be shocked at the type of incidents these groups classify as mass shootings. Most understand what comes to mind when you hear the term – a deranged monster stalking the halls of a school, shopping mall or house of worship, randomly executing innocent people. Most do not picture two gang members shooting it out over turf, a maniac turning a gun on their family members, or a drug deal gone bad.
What follows is an examination of the groups that promote mass shooting data, starting with the FBI, which many consider the only trustworthy data repository.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation
The FBI says there were 50 mass shootings in 2020. They use what has been called the “gold standard” of mass shooting definitions.
According to their new report titled: “Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2020,” the FBI defines active shootings as:
- Shootings in public places
- Shootings occurring at more than one location
- Shootings where the shooter’s actions were not the result of another criminal act
- Shootings resulting in a mass killing
- Shootings indicating apparent spontaneity by the shooter
- Shootings where the shooter appeared to methodically search for potential victims
- Shootings that appeared focused on injury to people, not buildings or objects
Shootings were excluded from the FBI’s list if they were the result of:
- Self-defense
- Gang violence
- Drug violence
- Contained residential or domestic disputes
- Controlled barricade/hostage situations
- Crossfire as a byproduct of another ongoing criminal act
- An action that appeared not to have put other people in peril
Everytown for Gun Safety
Everytown says there were 648 mass shootings in 2020. According to their website, Everytown acknowledges there were problems with their original definition, but then admits they use the same definition as the Gun Violence Archive.
“When Everytown began tracking mass shootings after the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary, there was no common definition of a mass shooting. In earlier versions of this report, Everytown defined a mass shooting as any incident in which four or more people were killed, excluding the shooter. Since then, research and news coverage of these tragic events has expanded greatly, but the question of how to best define a mass shooting remains unsettled. Different definitions result in different counts of mass shooting incidents—ranging from roughly a dozen per year to nearly two mass shootings every day—and encompass different causes of gun violence,” Everytown’s website states. “We now define a mass shooting as any incident in which four or more people are shot and wounded or killed, excluding the shooter. In this report, Everytown adopts a definition informed by the common understanding of mass shootings increasingly accepted by most US residents and chosen by many major news outlets and the Gun Violence Archive, the source of much of the data in this report.”
USA Today, Associated Press and Northeastern University
USA Today, Associated Press and Northeastern University say there were 42 mass shootings in 2020. These groups admit their definition is much narrower than the GVA’s, and includes additional information, such as descriptions of the weapons used.
“Over the past decade, USA TODAY, along with Northeastern University and The Associated Press, has been tracking all mass killings in the United States. When it comes to gun violence, our database is narrower than some tracking sites, such as the Gun Violence Archive, that include shootings that injure large numbers of people but kill no one. However, our database is broader in other ways. It includes every mass killing since 2006 from all weapons in which four or more people, excluding the offender, were killed within a 24-hour time frame. The database also includes dozens of variables on each incident, offender, victim, and weapon,” the groups state.
The Gun Violence Archive
The Gun Violence Archive says there were 648 mass shootings in 2020. The GVA says mass shootings “have a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident.”
In a previous interview with the Second Amendment Foundation, GVA’s co-founder and executive director, Mark Bryant, defended his group’s overly broad and all-inclusive definition.
“It doesn’t parse,” he said. “It gives an accurate picture of the number of times more than four people were shot, whether in a drive-by or a shooting at a rap concert or a country music concert.”
If his higher numbers are misleading the public or being misinterpreted by journalists, it’s not his fault, Bryant claimed. He believes his numbers are fair. “I do, but I think it’s also up to the journalist and the reader to have a better understanding of what the data says. When a journalist uses the mass-shooting numbers as their lead, they’re not looking at the whole situation.”
Bryant deflected blame for the media’s overhyping and misuse of his data.
“If the numbers are misleading, the journalist didn’t do their homework, you could make that argument,” he said. “The media zeroes in on it, not us. At one point we wanted to take mass shootings out of the loop, but the phone started ringing on a daily basis. It’s important to me that we’re not misinterpreted. We’re not anti-gun. Look at our staff, over half are gun owners. I intentionally do not hire from the (Gun Violence Prevention) community. I want researchers – period. We wanted to have an honest set of data, and you can use it how you want.”
Bryant’s claims that he is not anti-gun don’t hold up. He has lobbied for stricter gun control.
In 2018, he coauthored a guest column for the Los Angeles Times, titled: “Op-Ed: We have all the data we need: Stronger gun laws would save lives.” The column was coauthored with Devin Hughes, founder of GVPedia, which according to its website is a “project created to provide ready access to academic research and high-quality data on gun violence.”
In their column, Bryant and Hughes called for more anti-gun legislation, stating: “More guns mean more crime and more death. Gun possession significantly increases your risk of being killed by someone you know. A gun in the home doubles your risk of homicide and triples your risk of suicide. The presence of a gun increases the lethality of domestic violence. Areas with higher gun ownership see a significant increase in burglary. And states with higher levels of gun ownership experience higher rates of firearm fatalities.”
Bryant told the Second Amendment Foundation he also supports restricting standard-capacity magazines.
“I think magazine capacity is an issue that should be addressed. You don’t need 30-round mags or a 60-round drum,” he said. “While they are great ‘get off’ tools, they’re part of a hobby, not part of the Second Amendment.”
Mother Jones
Mother Jones magazine says there were 12 mass shootings in 2020. They use a very strict, very narrow definition:
- The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three; our database reflects this change beginning from Jan. 2013, as detailed above.)
- The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)
- The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).
- Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.
- We included a handful of cases also known as ‘spree killings’— cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
Violence Prevention Project
The Violence Prevention Project says there were seven mass shootings in 2020. They focus on “mass public shootings” as defined by the Congressional Research Service:
“A multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms—not including the offender(s)—within one event, and at least some of the murders occurred in a public location or locations in close geographical proximity (e.g., a workplace, school, restaurant, or other public settings), and the murders are not attributable to any other underlying criminal activity or commonplace circumstance (armed robbery, criminal competition, insurance fraud, argument, or romantic triangle).”
“Any cut point is arbitrary, but this remains a widely agreed-upon standard,” the Violence Prevention Project states. “Further, the number of deaths is the strongest predictor of media coverage, which we use to help build our database.”
Mass Shooting Tracker
The Mass Shooting Tracker did not have 2020 data available. Their data for 2024 states that there have been 73 mass shooting so far this year, which resulted in 126 people killed and 240 wounded.
Their data, the group says, is “compiled by an independent all volunteer group based out of reddit.” This group disputes the FBI’s definition.
“The current FBI definition of mass murder, commonly accepted by the media as a proxy for ‘mass gun violence,’ is three or more people murdered in one event. We believe this does not capture the whole picture. Many people may survive a shooting based on luck alone. Some may be left with lifelong disabilities and trauma, but the mainstream definition of mass gun violence does not account for this,” the group states, adding, “Our definition is this: a mass shooting is an incident where four or more people are shot in a single shooting spree. This may include the gunman himself, or police shootings of civilians around the gunman.”
Takeaways
The Mass Shooting Tracker had zero media mentions in the past 30 days. Mother Jones and Everytown were each mentioned twice. Mass shooting data sets from USA Today, The Associated Press and Northeastern University were mentioned three times by media outlets. The Violence Prevention Project data garnered 10 media mentions. However, the Gun Violence Archive was mentioned more than 30 times over the past month, along with scores of posts on Facebook and X.
It is crystal clear that when it comes to coverage of mass shootings, the more inflated the data, the more the legacy media will lap it up.
—Lee Williams for the SAF Investigative Journalism Project
whole buncha folks at once.
jr. Thanks for keeping the audience entertained, I was busy scrounging at the bidenomic grocery.
Loose Numbers do not matter when Historical Analogies Confirm the democRat Party Gun Control Alternative is Rooted in Racism and Genocide. Running to Gun Control for help would be like Jews running to nazis for help and Blacks running to the kkk for help, etc.
Gun Control has been so inherently evil for so long it cannot ever be rehabilitated…
https://youtube.com/watch?v=WlItbl9SOAg&feature=shared
Whenever media is concerned the words mean the most dramatic, horrible, extreme, bloody thing they can possibly mean. It keeps the people in their seats and the eyes on the screens and as a bonus it keeps the politicians in power and the money flowing through the system.
Lets not forget that the Gun Violence Archive was in the last few weeks found to have been lying, again, about their numbers by basically playing ‘word and semantics games’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw0Ho7SNBVE
Plus, the GVA still has not removed 147 incidents that were not a mass-shooting of any type (not even a gun present and no shots fired, that what ya get for relying MSM media reports and letting your left wing anti-gun idiots ‘vet’ the data), and that’s not all they should not have counted either. They have even counted incidents in which police officers have fired at suspects, but the media mis-reported it initially like it was the suspect shooting at people when the suspect wasn’t and the only shots fired were from police officers. There is soooo much in the GVA that is flat out wrong.
The best way to deal with these false numbers. Is to show stories of these gun grabbers spending private money, and government tax $$$ on their own private armed security force.
And you can also have stories of people like Tim Pool or former NRA spokesperson Dana Loesh. Who had “swatting attacks” made against them. And talk about their concerns from credible death threats. The police said they were credible threats.
1.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/suck-it-up-anti-gun-congresswomans-private-security-costs-come-under-rightful-scrutiny/
2.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/stacey-defund-the-police-abrams-spent-1-2-million-on-private-security/
Plenty of the true believers out there see nothing wrong with the beautiful people being protected by taxpayers while they themselves are drowning in overdoses and gang shootouts.
In fact they’re not just okay with it they see their suffering as a form of revolutionary suicide that bolsters the cause. Simping of the highest order.
Yes the sheep will still think that it’s better, to be guarded by their shepherd. But the 2020 riots and the orders for the police to stand down and do nothing. Those memories are not going to fade from many people.
And if Donald Trump gets elected to president as I hope he does. Then not only will Portland Oregon riot every day for a year straight. But so will many other democrat cities riot as well.
Finally , now , a large percentage of the american population now believes, that their local police are possibly unreliable.
GVA definition includes some idiot having a negligent discharge and 3 people getting an ouchie while running away from the idiot.
that too sometimes, and in some cases there in the GVA numbers there are actual vehicle generated backfires that the media initially reported as ‘shooting’ ’cause someone reported as ‘someone shooting’ and called the police.
LEO having a negligent discharge at 2am on a Sunday (with NOBODY around) was defined as a “school shooting” a few years ago.
There has been all sorts of nonsense reported in the GVA numbers, like the women who reported a ‘mass shooting’ incident to police because they happen to have been passing an outdoor firing range and people on the range were shooting at targets. But it made it into a police report as a ‘mass shooting’ type incident reported because that’s the words the women used, and GVA used that police report and keyed on those words despite the police report saying it didn’t happen.
“We wanted to have an honest set of data, and you can use it how you want.” –Bryant (wink wink)
Well, it appears that he failed with the honest, but the use it how you want is a rousing success.
The datasets have been corrupted by the inherent biases of the collectors.
RE: “What’s the Definition of a Mass Shooting?”
It’s whatever Gun Control History illiterate useful idiots believe.
Numbers are a lot like people. Torture them enough and they will say whatever you want them to say. (A little dark humor, but true none the less)
dacian and miner will agree. The truth is what is convenient to justify their actions.
As sympathetic as I am towards victims of violence, the question is “what difference does it make” whether it’s 4 killed, or 4 wounded, or whether the number is 50, 600, or 800. We are talking about semantics that ultimately isn’t going to sway one side or the other. The truth is that it doesn’t matter to those impacted and it’s a saddening depiction of humanity anyways – regardless of how the violence occurred, or what items were used.
I might suggest that the better response would be “how to not be a victim / statistic” in the first place, which could include not venturing into one of the dozen or so counties where a significant portion of these violent incents occur – or at least don’t do it after dark.
“If the numbers are misleading, the journalist didn’t do their homework, you could make that argument,’ he said. ‘The media zeroes in on it, not us. At one point we wanted to take mass shootings out of the loop, but the phone started ringing on a daily basis. It’s important to me that we’re not misinterpreted. We’re not anti-gun. Look at our staff, over half are gun owners. I intentionally do not hire from the (Gun Violence Prevention) community. I want researchers – period. We wanted to have an honest set of data, and you can use it how you want.”
1. The claim of ‘gun ownership’ is a deception here. There are members of your staff that are indeed very supportive and assisting for EveryTown and most anti-gun orgs. Some of these own guns. Gun ownership and being pro 2A are not always the same thing, as the deceptive ads from various politicians have shown us and the fact that members of anti-=gun orgs trying to over throw the constitution own guns too. .
2. There is no such thing as a ‘Gun Violence Prevention community’. There are people who want to take away a constitutional right, the Second Amendment, from law abiding Americans, do away with constitutional rights and make them ‘privileges’ or just remove rights completely and they do it claiming its ‘Gun Violence Prevention’, with them in control in some aspect. Its a community of tyrant wanna be’s.
3. If its so important that you not be ‘misinterpreted’ and your circus is ‘not anti-gun’ then how come you do not welcome the pro-2A community to be participatory with the GVA like you welcome the anti-gun community and cater to them? Why is it that when pro-2A community members contact you and point out incorrect data all they get from you is excuses and gaslighting, until it becomes very public and can’t be ignored then you might do something but then there is this ‘canned’ excuse (I quoted above) you give basically every time and absolve yourself of any responsibility with “the journalist didn’t do their homework” and “and you can use it how you want.” while claiming “researchers – period. We wanted to have an honest set of data” but your data is not always correct now is it. Here’s a clue: Honest researchers and organizations take responsibility for their incorrect and misrepresented data – they don’t make excuses for it.
4. At one point you claim you wanted to take mass shootings out of the loop, but the phone started ringing on a daily basis. Yeah, it was ringing from all the left wing anti-gun orgs and people calling you and never once did you consider including the pro-2A community orgs in that decision, only what the anti-gun orgs wanted.
Oh I get it, its not your fault your data is wrong, its not your fault your own biased ‘researchers’ ignore obviously wrong data, its not your fault that you glory in the attention you get from the media and the anti-gun ‘community’. Its not your fault, because the GVA is anti-gun and to anti-gun its never their fault no matter how many mentally ill killers and criminals they embolden and facilitate by disarming innocent law abiding Americans and setting up kill-zones called ‘gun free zones’ for these predators to hunt in by using the BS you supply as their excuse. Its not your fault, after all, they can use that data how they want, right?
anytime four or more people are even slightly wounded by gunfire
Oh well then, “slightly wounded” doesn’t count. I mean if you or your kid’s chest was grazed by a bullet you’d think nothing of it and continue about your day as if nothing happened.
slightly wounded by gunfire – to them, in their actual use, they say this includes, for example, if someone was running away and fell and scrapped their knee they were “slightly wounded by gunfire” because they were running as a result of gunfire.
For example: there are many cases in the numbers where no one was shot but people fell trying to hide or run and got hurt in the fall in some way. There are cases in the numbers where there wasn’t even a gun and no shots were fired, but someone said they heard shots and got injured while trying to run. There are cases in the numbers where the claimed victims weren’t even there but in some way claimed to be ‘traumatized’ by the event. these are automatically included under ‘slightly wounded by gunfire’
There are cases in the numbers where there was no one shot and claims of people dead but no bodies were ever found and the excuse for these missing victim bodies given by these anti-gun is “a single bullet completely vaporized the body and clothing and hair and blood and teeth and bones and DNA and no trace is left” (this is an actual excuse that has been given, but the numbers are still in their data) despite zero actual victims for the incidents.
This is what happens when you have self-appointed (claim to be) ‘researchers’ and biased interests with no controls that can make up their own definitions and have control over their numbers with no recognized accountability or standards employed for ‘collection and handing’ of the data.
Does that qualify?
Mass Shooting Tracker makes more sense. When you have people crippled for life not including them in a mass shooting is a blatant attempt by the Far Right Fanatics to cover up the truth about America’s out of control gun problems.
Far Right Fanatics will scream that if only 999 people were shot and not 1,000 by one l one gunman than it is not a mass killing. ffg
What in retardation are you attempting to communicate?
just so you know, … after looking into dacians real identity some its known dacian is mentally ill and under treatment by mental health professionals having been diagnosed with schizophrenia which is a serious mental health illness disorder in which people interpret reality abnormally and is associated with violent tendencies (although most will never actually become violent, but they think about it). He sees concepts of “Right Wing Fanatic” and ‘Capitalvania’ in everything.
The majority of people with schizophrenia never become violent although those with schizophrenia do have an increased tendency toward violent behaviors of some type known to be associated with schizophrenia. But there is a category of these that will for a fact become violent in some manner and Moreno, the Lakewood shooter, as an example, was diagnosed with this particular version of schizophrenia. Which is interesting, because: All of the mass/school shooters (for the last 40 years) that lived that were actually diagnosed for mental health issues by a mental health professional either before or after their heinous acts were diagnosed with violent traits known to be associated with this same version of violent schizophrenia as Moreno had or were diagnosed directly as having this same violent version Moreno had. And those mass/school shooters (for the last 40 years) who died, an examination of their lives (including any mental health professional interaction) revealed traits known to be associated with this same version of violent schizophrenia or were directly diagnosed at some point by a mental health professional with this same version of violent schizophrenia as Moreno had, and this also includes the Nashville trans shooter.
Most left wing ‘SJW’ ‘activists and anti-gun, and a lot of trans-people, show traits associated with schizophrenia especially the traits of interpreting reality abnormally (e.g. a lot of trans people claim and believe there is a trans genocide, in reality there is no trans genocide).
Miner49er has also expressed traits of schizophrenia in his posts here, the interpreting reality abnormally traits along with agreeing with the left-wing facilitated and emboldened violence by ignoring its interaction thus excusing it by not considering the reality and his mental illness obsession with Trump. People with schizophrenia are frequently obsessed with a person or group they see as the ’cause of everything’ in their abnormal interpretation of reality – for Miner49er its Trump and religion and republicans, for dacian its “Right Wing Fanatic” and ‘Capitalvania’, and their different expressions of those in various forms.
I know how crucial it is to use correct and clear information because I work in electrical estimating. When discussing mass shootings, it’s important to define our terms precisely. Speaking clearly facilitates improved understanding and more fruitful conversations. I appreciate you bringing this to our attention.
Comments are closed.