Vote Write Call Make Your Voice Heard Now! 
Related Articles
Today we’re talking about a hot-button issue in America: mass shootings. You hear it all the time in the media: “The US has the highest rate of mass shootings in the world.” But is that really true? Let’s take a closer look.
According to a researcher named Adam Lankford, the US is responsible for 31% of all mass shooters in the world. That’s a shocking statistic and it’s been cited by everyone from all over the media to former President Obama himself.
The claim that the US has the highest rate of mass shootings is often attributed to a study by Adam Lankford a professor of criminology at the University of Alabama. Lankford’s study which had not yet been published at the time purported to show that the US had significantly more mass shooters than any other country. However as it turns out Lankford’s methodology and data were highly questionable.
But is it accurate? Well not so fast.
Let’s take a closer look at how mass shootings in the US compare to those in other countries. The issue has been hotly debated with conflicting studies and statistics making it difficult to get a clear picture of the situation. One study that gained a lot of attention was conducted by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC). The Crime Prevention Research Center is a pro-gun nonprofit. According to the CPRC’s findings from 2009 to 2015 the US ranked 11th in the world for the annual number of mass shooting deaths per million people. In fact, Norway, Serbia, France, and Macedonia all had higher rates of mass shooting deaths per million than the US. These findings suggest that while the US does have a high rate of gun violence it may not be the worst offender when it comes to mass shootings.
Another researcher named John Lott has analyzed mass shootings around the world and he found some interesting discrepancies. Lott’s data shows that between 1998 and 2012 there were 1491 mass public shootings worldwide. Of those less than 3% occurred in the United States. That means that the US produced fewer than 1.43% of the mass public shooters during that time period. In fact Lott counted only 43 shooters in the United States between 1998 and 2012.
So why the discrepancy? Lott believes that Lankford’s methodology is flawed. Lankford has refused to release his data sets making it impossible for other researchers to replicate his results. Lankford claimed that his data was based on a report from the New York City police department an FBI report and a survey of news reports overseas. But without access to the raw data there is no way to verify the accuracy of Lankford’s claims.
This is a common problem in academic research and it highlights the importance of transparency and replication in the scientific process. If we cannot trust the data and methods used in a study then we cannot trust the results either.
Lankford defines a mass shooter as someone who kills four or more people in a public place but Lott argues that this leaves out a lot of other types of mass shootings such as those that occur in private homes or are perpetrated by terrorist organizations.
Some researchers have pointed out the definition of a mass shooting can vary widely depending on who you ask. For example the FBI defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people are killed or injured excluding the shooter. Other organizations such as the Gun Violence Archive use a broader definition that includes any incident in which four or more people are shot regardless of whether they are killed or injured.
This discrepancy in definitions can lead to vastly different estimates of the number of mass shootings that occur in the US each year. For example according to the FBI there were 30 mass shootings in the US in 2019. But according to the Gun Violence Archive there were 417 mass shootings in the same year.
So what can we conclude from all of this? First we should be cautious when interpreting statistics about mass shootings in the US. While it is true that the US has a higher rate of gun violence than many other developed countries the exact extent of this problem is difficult to measure and is likely influenced by a wide range of factors.
But even if we accept Lankford’s definition of a mass shooter does that mean the US has a unique problem with mass shootings? Not necessarily. Many countries with strict gun control laws such as France and Norway have experienced mass shootings in recent years. Meanwhile countries with high rates of gun ownership such as Switzerland have very low rates of violent crime.
So what’s the answer? Well as with most things it’s complicated. The issue of mass shootings is multi-faceted and it can’t be boiled down to a single factor. While the availability of guns is certainly a factor it’s not the only one. Other factors that have been suggested include mental illness social isolation and a culture of violence.
But one thing is clear: knee-jerk reactions and simplistic solutions won’t solve the problem. Calls for stricter gun control laws may be well-intentioned but they’re unlikely to have much impact on the incidence of mass shootings. After all many of the shooters in recent years have obtained their weapons legally despite existing gun control laws. And let’s not forget that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens who use their weapons responsibly.
Ultimately it’s up to each individual to decide what they believe the solution to the problem of mass shootings should be. But it’s important to consider all of the available evidence including the data collected by John Lott before jumping to conclusions. There are many differences in mental health socioeconomic status and cultural attitudes toward society and guns.
