How do mass shooting definitions affect racial statistics?
Executive summary
How researchers and outlets define "mass shooting" dramatically changes which incidents—and which racial groups—appear most affected. Databases that count incidents with four or more shot (Gun Violence Archive) capture many nonfatal, often felony-linked events that disproportionately occur in Black and Latino communities [1] [2] [3]. Definitions that require four or more killed or restrict to public, indiscriminate rampage events shift the profile toward white perpetrators and high-fatality attacks [2] [4] [5].
1. Definitions decide which events get counted — and which racial patterns emerge
There is no single accepted definition: Gun Violence Archive (GVA) counts incidents with four or more people shot, excluding the shooter [1]; some academic and policy definitions require four or more killed [2]. Because GVA’s threshold includes nonfatal shootings, it captures many neighborhood- and crime-linked incidents; studies show definitions that include nonfatal or felony-related shootings will identify more events tied to minority communities [2] [3].
2. Counting fatalities versus injuries changes the racial picture
When researchers focus on fatalities (four-plus killed), the most-public, high-fatality rampage shootings — which several studies find are overrepresented by white shooters using assault rifles — dominate headline statistics [4] [5]. When researchers include nonfatal injuries, databases record many more events that are often embedded in everyday gun violence and more visible in Black and Latino communities [2] [1] [3].
3. Excluding gang- and felony-related shootings narrows the field in a racially consequential way
Some definitions explicitly exclude gang conflicts, robberies or felony-related shootings to focus on “indiscriminate” public rampages [2]. That exclusion removes a large share of shootings that, according to reporting and research, tend to be committed by young Black and Hispanic males and occur within those communities [5]. The practical effect: databases that exclude felony-related events report a higher share of white perpetrators; those that include them show more Black and Latino representation [2] [5].
4. Media and academic framings amplify different narratives
Mother Jones, The Washington Post, and academic teams use different inclusion rules; Mother Jones has called its approach “conservative,” acknowledging many smaller or nonfatal events fall outside its scope [2]. Advocacy groups and think tanks also select definitions that align with their arguments: some gun-control advocates emphasize white-perpetrator public massacres while racial-justice advocates point to everyday gun violence’s disparate burden on communities of color [6] [4]. These choices shape public perception of who the “typical” shooter is [2] [4].
5. Survey and exposure data show community impacts differ from perpetrator-focused tallies
Population surveys find Black adults report higher rates of direct exposure to mass-shooting events than white adults, underscoring how exposure and harm can diverge from perpetrator-focused counts [3]. That suggests that even when headline statistics emphasize white-perpetrator rampages, the lived burden of mass-shooting exposure and aftermath can be concentrated in communities of color [3].
6. Scholarly nuance: setting, weapon, and motive matter to racial patterns
Research distinguishing public rampages from mass public shootings finds white perpetrators are overrepresented in the highest-fatality public events and in attacks involving assault-style rifles [4]. Conversely, shootings tied to criminal activity or intimate contexts are more often committed by young Black or Hispanic men and frequently target people of the same ethnic group [5]. Analysts argue a standard definition that counts both fatalities and nonfatalities would better capture overall burden [2].
7. What the data limitations hide — and what sources disagree about
Sources agree that definitional inconsistency produces divergent racial statistics [2] [3]. They disagree, however, on emphasis: some outlets and datasets highlight white-perpetrator rampages [4] [5], while others and public-health studies emphasize the broader, racially disparate exposure to shootings that include nonfatal, felony-related events [1] [3]. Available sources do not mention a single, authoritative federal definition that reconciles these approaches [2].
8. Policy and reporting implications: transparency and a standard metric
Researchers have recommended adopting a standard that considers both fatalities and nonfatalities to reflect the true burden of mass shootings [2]. For journalists and policymakers, the crucial step is transparency about inclusion criteria: declare whether a dataset counts injured victims, excludes gang-related incidents, or requires multiple deaths—because such rules materially alter which racial patterns appear in the statistics [2] [1].
Bottom line: the racial story of "mass shootings" depends on how you define the term. Databases that prioritize fatal, public rampages skew toward white perpetrators and high-fatality events; definitions that include nonfatal and felony-linked incidents reveal heavier impacts in Black and Latino communities [2] [1] [4] [5].