Is gang bang shooting included in mass shootings studies and averages?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Researchers and trackers disagree on whether gang-related "gang bang" shootings are counted as mass shootings: some major datasets exclude gang- or felony-motivated incidents while others include them. For example, the Rockefeller Institute’s Mass Shooting Factsheet and Mother Jones exclude gang-motivated attacks as “mass public shootings” [1] [2], whereas Gun Violence Archive and Everytown count incidents with gang, drug, domestic or felony motives under broader mass‑shooting definitions [3] [4].
1. Definitions drive the numbers — different rules, different totals
There is no single accepted definition of “mass shooting,” and whether gang-related shootings are included depends entirely on the dataset’s rules. The Gun Violence Archive (GVA) defines a mass shooting as four or more people shot (excluding the shooter) and includes incidents labeled gang, domestic, drug-related or occurring in private settings [3] [4]. By contrast, sources that focus on “mass public shootings” — including the Rockefeller Institute’s factsheet and Mother Jones’ database — explicitly exclude shootings tied to gang activity, robbery, organized crime, or other conventional crimes [1] [2].
2. Why some researchers exclude gang-related shootings
Analysts who exclude gang shootings argue those events are contextually distinct: they are often retaliatory, targeted, and tied to ongoing criminal activity rather than the “indiscriminate rampage” archetype policymakers and the public associate with mass public shootings [5] [2]. The Rockefeller Institute’s factsheet frames its dataset to capture targeted public attacks whose motivation “must not correlate with gang violence or targeted militant or terroristic activity,” signaling an intention to isolate a particular policy problem from broader firearm violence [1] [6].
3. Why some include them — scope and representation
Other researchers treat gang-related multi-victim shootings as part of the overall burden of mass firearm violence because excluding those events can undercount harms that disproportionately affect marginalized communities and misrepresent the total scale of multi-victim shootings. The systematic review and database comparisons note that broader definitions (like Everytown’s and GVA’s) include gang, drug, family and intimate-partner violence, arguing that those incidents are substantively part of large-scale gun violence [4] [3].
4. The practical effect: headline counts can diverge widely
Because of these definitional choices, annual tallies vary dramatically across sources. For instance, the Gun Violence Archive reported hundreds of mass‑shooting incidents in recent years using its four-or-more-shot standard [3], while narrower mass‑killing databases that require four or more deaths or exclude gang/felony motives report far fewer incidents and different trends [7] [1]. Media coverage and policy debates often cite whichever dataset best fits the point being advanced, so readers must check definitions before accepting a number.
5. Methodological trade‑offs and implicit agendas
Each approach has trade‑offs and implicit priorities. Excluding gang shootings sharpens focus on lone-wolf public massacres that spur debate about public‑space security and mental‑health interventions [2] [1]. Including gang shootings captures the broader public-health burden of multi-victim gun violence and highlights inequities in who is most affected [4]. Researchers and advocacy groups choose definitions that align with their research questions or policy goals; those choices should be read as analytic decisions, not neutral facts [5] [4].
6. How to interpret studies and averages as a reader or policymaker
When you see averages or counts, ask: What threshold (injuries vs. fatalities) does the source use? Does it exclude gang, robbery, domestic, or terrorist motives? Does it count injuries, fatalities, or both? For example, the GVA’s inclusive four-or-more-shot rule produces higher incident counts than datasets that require four or more deaths or exclude felony-motivated shootings [3] [4] [1]. Always read the methodology section before comparing numbers across sources [4] [5].
7. What available sources do not mention
Available sources do not mention a single universally accepted legal or scientific standard that mandates inclusion or exclusion of gang‑related shootings from “mass shooting” counts; instead, they document disagreement and divergent methodological choices across datasets [2] [4] [1].
8. Bottom line for your question
Yes — sometimes. Some major mass‑shooting databases include gang‑related “gang bang” shootings (Gun Violence Archive, Everytown), while others exclude them when their purpose is to study mass public shootings or indiscriminate rampages (Rockefeller Institute factsheet, Mother Jones) [3] [4] [1] [2]. Which datasets appear in a study or news report determines whether those incidents are reflected in averages and trendlines [5] [4].