Summary: A new study examines common misconceptions that arise after mass shootings and aims to correct several widely held myths.
Source: The Conversation.
At least 10 students were killed at a Santa Fe, Texas high school on May 18 after a classmate opened fire with a shotgun and a .38-caliber revolver.
The Santa Fe massacre came just three months after the Parkland, Florida shooting that left 17 dead and helped spark a nationwide, youth-led movement against gun violence. Each mass shooting renews public debate about what policies can reduce these tragedies and which commonly repeated claims are supported by evidence.
As a criminologist, I regularly encounter misconceptions that resurface after mass shootings. Below I summarize what peer-reviewed research and international data actually show about mass shootings, gun ownership, background checks, and motives.
1. More guns do not make you safer
Research comparing wealthy nations finds that the United States experiences far more mass shootings than comparable countries. Between 1983 and 2013, mass shootings occurred in 25 other high-income nations, but the U.S. accounted for 78 of these incidents—nearly double the combined total of the other 24 countries in that period.
Studies consistently show a strong relationship between firearm ownership rates and the likelihood of mass shootings: higher civilian gun ownership is associated with a greater risk of mass shooting incidents. That association remains even when the United States is removed from some analyses, indicating the relationship is not driven solely by U.S. data.
International agencies such as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reach a similar conclusion: countries with higher levels of firearm ownership tend to have higher firearm homicide rates. Research also links mass shooting casualties with overall firearm death rates, although the extremely high U.S. firearm death toll strongly influences some of those findings.
2. Mass shootings are occurring more frequently
Analyses from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and other groups show an increase in the frequency of mass shootings over recent years. One way researchers measure that trend is by tracking the average time between mass shootings: data indicate that the average interval fell from roughly 200 days between incidents during 1983–2011 to about 64 days since 2011.
This rising frequency stands in contrast to broader trends in intentional homicide. In the United States, the overall gun homicide rate fell by nearly half from its early-1990s peak, and Europe saw large declines in intentional homicides during the 2003–2013 period. The divergent trends suggest that while general violent crime has fallen in many places, mass shootings have become more common and require specific attention.
3. Restricting gun sales reduces firearm deaths
National licensing regimes vary widely. In the U.S., the Second Amendment has contributed to relatively permissive licensing in many jurisdictions, where most people may purchase firearms unless specifically prohibited. By contrast, many other developed countries operate restrictive licensing systems that require prospective buyers to justify ownership, demonstrate safe handling training, obtain permits for hunting or range use, and show good character.
Criminologists who study licensing systems describe permissive policies as those where the default allows purchase unless authorities can establish a disqualifying reason. Restrictive systems require applicants to proactively demonstrate legitimate reasons and fitness to own a firearm. Empirical evidence indicates that countries with more restrictive licensing laws tend to have lower gun ownership rates and fewer deaths by firearms.
4. Comprehensive background checks and licensing work
In countries with robust background checks—such as Canada and Australia—applicants typically complete safety training, obtain licenses, and sometimes demonstrate membership in a shooting club or legitimate hunting need. Background checks screen out people in legally defined prohibited groups: individuals with certain criminal histories, serious untreated mental illnesses tied to violence risk, children, and others judged to be at high risk of committing violent acts.
Applied consistently, these checks and licensing conditions would have likely prevented many documented active shooters from legally acquiring firearms. In short, background checks and mandatory training are evidence-based measures that reduce access to guns by people who pose a high risk.
5. Most mass shootings are not classified as terrorism
Media reports sometimes label mass shootings as domestic terrorism, but this term can be misleading if applied indiscriminately. While mass shootings are unquestionably terrifying and terrorize local communities, most perpetrators do not act primarily from an organized political ideology aimed at undermining government authority.
Some high-profile incidents—such as the Charleston church shooting—were prosecuted as hate crimes rather than federal terrorism. Many active shooters are driven by personal motivations: severe mental health struggles, experiences of bullying, job-related grievances, romantic or social rejection, revenge, or a desire for notoriety and power. These motives differ from politically driven terrorism, and policy responses focused on ideological extremism will not address the broader set of risk factors linked to most mass shootings.
Funding: Frederic Lemieux reports no conflicts of interest or funding from organizations that would benefit from this article and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond academic appointment.
Source: Frederic Lemieux – The Conversation
Publisher: Organized by NeuroscienceNews.com.
Image source: NeuroscienceNews.com image is in the public domain.
The Conversation, “5 Things to Know About Mass Shootings in America,” NeuroscienceNews, 19 May 2018. (Original reporting and analysis by Frederic Lemieux.)
Please share responsibly: accurate facts and evidence-based policy discussion help reduce future tragedies.