If you feel as if mass shootings are happening more often, that’s, well, because they are. The pace of mass killings so far in 2023 has broken records compared with previous years, with an average of about one per week, according to the Mass Killings Database, which is produced by USA Today, Northeastern University, and the Associated Press.
Yet while the pace is up compared with past years, mass shootings still account for a relatively small percentage of gun deaths in the U.S., according to James Alan Fox, who manages the database. He’s also written 18 books on mass violence in the U.S. and is currently a professor of criminology, law, and public policy at Northeastern. I spoke with Fox about what these numbers mean, what can be done to reduce the violence, and some common misconceptions about mass shootings.
Here’s our conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity:
Shirin Ali: What do you think is driving the increase in mass shootings and killings in recent years?
James Alan Fox: It is true that we have more mass killings in this century than last, although we did have some very large-scale ones before. We had 23 people killed at a restaurant in Killeen, Texas [in 1991], and 21 killed at a McDonald’s in California [in 1984]. We did have them, but they didn’t quite get the same attention as they do now, partially because of the fact that they weren’t covered live; there were no satellite trucks beaming images as they unfolded.
But we do have more mass killings happening now, partially because we have a larger population. So keep that in mind. They’re increasing but still rare—both can be true.
In terms of mass killings, we have had 22 this year, which is more than we’ve had in other years. A little bit more, not greatly more than we’ve had, but it is more. People are wondering whether this is going to be a record year, and it’s hard to say because we’re only a third of the way through the year. In terms of rarity, we have a population of 325 million. The acts of 22 people are what’s driving our attention.
Now, in terms of the reasons why, besides just the growth and population: Clearly we have more weapons in the hands of Americans, particularly after COVID, when there was a big surge in gun sales. Also partially because people were concerned that perhaps some intruder would look to get their scarce supply of toilet paper after COVID hit, or because some gun owners were concerned that a Biden administration would take away their rights. We also have more individuals, post-COVID, who are economically or emotionally struggling, and certainly it’s hard to find a time when our country was as divided politically as it is now, when people don’t trust their neighbors, don’t like their neighbors, and maybe want revenge.
There’s been a documented increase in depression and anxiety among U.S. adults and adolescents since the coronavirus pandemic hit in 2020. Is there a correlation there with the increase in mass killings we’re seeing now?
The Mass Killings Database that I manage has data that goes back to 2006, and from 2006 till about 2017, there really wasn’t any increase. It was pretty flat. But it’s only been the last handful of years that we’ve seen this spike.
I can’t say whether that spike will continue, but it does appear that after COVID we’ve seen this increase. A lot of Americans have indicated they are struggling, and they may see other people not struggling as much and that may make them feel like society is not a level playing field. They want justice and may even want revenge because they believe society is corrupt, and in certain cases that could lead to hate-inspired mass shootings.
Do you think local gun laws influence the number of shootings a given state experiences?
Yes. We published a paper, about two years ago, in which we looked at 11 different types of gun laws, state by state, over decades, and the occurrence and severity of mass shootings in public places, the types people worry about happening at schools, churches, etc. What we found is that states that have permit-to-purchase laws, which is essentially a much more thorough background check than what the FBI requires, have significantly lower rates of the occurrence of mass shootings. Now, states that have bans on large-capacity magazines, they have significantly fewer casualties, both deaths and injuries, when there is a mass shooting. So those two approaches seem to have an impact on the incidence and severity.
When a mass shooting happens, Republicans tend to blame mental health issues, while Democrats blame it on the guns. Has your research shown what the real causes are?
I can tell you from my research that a relatively small percentage of mass shooters are seriously mentally ill—schizophrenic, for example. A lot of them are unhappy, depressed; life is generally not going well for them and they want to end it. But first they want to take with them other people that they consider responsible, or at least share their misery with.
Should we still improve and expand mental health resources in this country? Absolutely. Because millions of Americans could benefit, but mass shooters, or would-be mass shooters, are unlikely to take you up on the offer. They tend to see themselves as the victim of injustice, whether it be at work or at home, or just in society with their group. They want fair treatment—they don’t want the psychological kind, because they don’t see that as a problem in them; it’s a problem in society or other people. We should still expand mental health treatment, but it will have a relatively small impact on mass shootings, whereas certain gun restrictions will have a bigger impact.
Now, let me also say this: Mass shootings tend to generate the most energy in the gun-control debate. But, ironically, they’re the type of gun crime that’s probably least impacted by those laws. We have over 20,000 gun homicides a year, and then we have even more suicides by guns. That’s where the big bite of crime can be taken by certain gun restrictions. Mass shootings are a very small percentage.
Plus, one thing about mass shooters is, they’re very determined individuals. They don’t just suddenly snap and go berserk and just so happen to have an AR-15 in the trunk of their car for such an occasion. These are well-planned executions—in fact, a majority of mass shooters plan for over a month what they’re going to do. And if they can’t get a gun legally, they’ll find another way, because they are that determined.
What solutions should local leaders and elected officials consider to prevent the next mass killing event from happening?
Well, there really are two. One is the permit-to-purchase laws. We need federal checks of individuals before they are given a permit to purchase a weapon. The fact that they don’t have a criminal record is not enough of a background check. Local police, for example, can have a lot more information about someone than would be in their official record, and that’s why we need a much more thorough background check for purchasing.
Everybody wants to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of dangerous individuals, but that’s far easier to articulate than to achieve. In the aftermath of a mass shooting, we see all the warning signs that were missed, but it’s very hard to to identify a mass shooter in advance because there are lots of people who are angry, who own guns, who play violent video games, who post ugly things on the internet, and a tiny fraction of them actually turn that angst into action.
The second area is to do something about the weapons that are available, particularly to ban large-capacity magazines that allow people to shoot round after round after round without having to stop and reload. The states that have done that, when they do have the unfortunate mass shootings, the severity is not as large.
When a mass shooting happens, people watch the news on TV or read up on it online, and the whole thing can be hard to make sense of. What do you think a lot of people get wrong about these events?
Well, the epidemic is fear of mass shootings, not the mass shootings themselves. For example, there was a poll two years ago that found that 25 percent of Americans believe that mass shootings were responsible for more gun deaths than any other type of event, even suicide, which is patently false. And other surveys show that as many as one-third of Americans avoid certain places because they’re concerned about being a victim of a mass shooting. That level of fear is way out of proportion with the risk. I understand it—certainly people say, “I’m going into a supermarket or restaurant, I look around, I’m worried whether someone might be armed.” I understand the fear, but it’s still way above the risk.
Now, part of the reason also has to do with the way these events are covered. For example, there was a shooting at an elementary school in 1989 and 30 people were injured. Five children died. Most people don’t remember it because it wasn’t shown on television. They didn’t have the technology, the satellite products that could beam images of mass shootings as they unfolded, live, into your living room in high definition. They say seeing is believing, and people believe that this is a rapidly growing trend because they see it on television so often.
Back in the 1980s, when that shooting at the school happened, there was only one cable news channel, and it was CNN. The network didn’t have the market share they have now, that’s for sure. And the traditional networks weren’t about to preempt soap operas to talk about a mass shooting for which they had no video. So now we have live video and recordings on cellphones that can be replayed over and over again so that people can just experience the sound of gunfire even from the safety of their homes. So, the perception that this is an epidemic is in part fueled by the pervasive attention, particularly visual attention.
