Context Matters: The Impact of Mislabeling Gun Violence in the Media
On August 5th, 2024, I woke up to read my morning news and saw “5 Hospitalized In Mass Shooting At Oakland Sideshow” to describe a gun violence incident at an illegal sideshow where five people were injured but not killed. I have seen headline after headline of the term “mass shooting” being used for gang-related shootings, domestic disputes, drive-by shootings, illegal sideshows, bar and club altercations, neighborhood feuds, criminal enterprise conflicts, drug deals gone wrong, and party violence.
In recent years, the term “mass shooting” has become alarmingly common in media headlines, often used to describe any incident where multiple individuals are injured or killed by gunfire. This blanket term application is misleading, desensitizing, and irreverent.
A study by the RAND Corporation in 2018 found that there is no standard for what qualifies as a mass shooting. The FBI defines Mass Shooting as an “event in which one or more individuals are “actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.” The Department of Justice as well as The Congressional Research Service defines mass shootings, as multiple, firearm, homicide incidents, involving 4 or more victims at one or more locations close to one another. Mother Jones has been tracking mass shootings for years. Originally it used the FBI’s standard definition: “A mass shooting is a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed.” Then a 2013 federal mandate lowered that fatality threshold to three, and Mother Jones adjusted accordingly.
But most importantly, Mass shootings are often characterized by the indiscriminate targeting of victims in a non-combat setting.
When most of America thinks of a mass shooting, images of a movie theater, school, or mall with a deranged gunman come to mind — tragic events designed to inflict mass casualties on innocent people in public spaces. These events, unfortunately, fit the criteria outlined by Congress and are rightly labeled as mass shootings.
Public perception is heavily influenced by media reporting. Ethical journalism requires a commitment to truth and accuracy, and not sensationalizing headlines for the sake of clicks or views. If every incident involving multiple gunshot victims is labeled a mass shooting, the public becomes desensitized and has an inaccurate view of what gun violence looks like or is caused by in America. This inaccurate view impacts policy decisions and the urgency with which lawmakers address gun violence.
Gun violence is a tragic and pressing issue that should concern us all, especially considering it is the leading cause of death among children. However, it is still important for the media to report accurately and responsibly so that the seriousness of such incidents is fully understood, and so that when these important issues arise, the coverage is taken seriously and can lead to informed, effective action. Different types of gun violence require different approaches to prevention and intervention.
Statistically, mass shootings as defined by Congress account for a small percentage of overall gun violence incidents. The majority of gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides, followed by homicides that often involve fewer victims and different circumstances than mass shootings. Experts in criminology and media studies emphasize the importance of precise language in reporting to maintain public trust and ensure that the focus remains on effective solutions. By correctly distinguishing the form of gun violence you are reporting on, the public can better understand the root causes, instead of just talking about the incident itself and moving on to the next clickbait story.
Using the term “mass shooting” for incidents that don’t involve fatalities can be seen as disrespectful to the victims and survivors of true mass shootings. These individuals have endured unimaginable trauma and loss, and conflating their experiences with less severe incidents minimizes their suffering.
A critical aspect of differentiating between true mass shootings and other forms of gun violence is understanding the events that led up to the incident, the mentality, and the preparation of the shooter, as well as the types of weapons used. Public mass shootings, such as those occurring in schools, malls, or theaters, are typically preplanned with a clear intent to inflict maximum harm. These shooters often plan their attacks meticulously, choosing locations where large groups of people congregate to ensure a high casualty rate. The weapons used in these attacks are often legally obtained firearms, including semi-automatic rifles and handguns with above-average amounts of ammunition, acquired by individuals who may pass background checks despite underlying mental health issues. The planning and intent behind these attacks make them distinctly different from spontaneous acts of violence.
In contrast, incidents like the Oakland sideshow, where five people were non-fatally injured, often lack premeditation. These events are typically spontaneous, arising from personal disputes or altercations during illegal activities. The firearms used in such incidents are frequently handguns or “ghost guns” — unregistered and untraceable weapons often obtained through illegal means. These shootings are reactionary rather than planned, with no strategic intent to cause mass casualties.
Incidents involving multiple victims during gang conflicts are often driven by turf wars, retaliation, or personal disputes. Events like illegal street racing or sideshows turn violent, often leading to multiple gunshot victims, and this is something that many spectators know when they choose to attend. Violence is inherently accepted and expected in organized crime, and shootings are related to conflicts within or between criminal enterprises, such as drug cartels or organized crime groups. This all requires prevention and intervention at the law enforcement level through policies that crack down on sideshows and gun interdiction programs.
Bar and party incidents that become violent, leading to multiple shootings, are often driven by personal conflicts or alcohol-induced altercations. There is a higher likelihood in these incidents that those not involved in the dispute will be injured, such as a woman who was shot when a dispute arose at the house next to hers on the Fourth of July, which is why bars often have security and policies revolving around how much alcohol is served, and cities have ordinances for large gatherings in neighborhoods.
Domestic violence-related gun violence incidents, where the head of a household commits mass murder followed by suicide, are a tragic and specific form of violence. These incidents are often addressed through Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs) and red flag laws, which allow for the temporary removal of firearms from individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others. Preventing such tragedies requires domestic violence advocacy and comprehensive prevention strategies, including support services and early intervention.
Communities, especially those already marginalized, suffer uniquely from gang-related and domestic violence incidents. Mislabeling these events as mass shootings can obscure the need for interventions and resources. Gang-related violence often stems from systemic issues such as poverty, lack of education, and limited economic opportunities. These root causes require specific community-based solutions, such as mentorship programs, job training, and educational support, rather than broad-brush responses aimed at preventing mass shootings.
The difference in how these firearms are obtained highlights a significant aspect of the gun control debate. Preplanned mass shootings often involve legally purchased weapons, prompting discussions on the effectiveness of red flag laws, background checks, and mental health screenings. Conversely, spontaneous shootings during gang disputes, at sideshows, or in the course of criminal activity, involve illegal firearms, and require the need for measures to combat the illegal gun trade and unregistered firearms at the law enforcement level.
Mass shootings, as defined by Congress, represent a specific and severe form of violence that deserves our focused attention and response.
The media has a responsibility to understand and acknowledge the importance of precise language, the impact of sensationalism, and the ethical considerations in covering violent incidents. Instead of broadly labeling an incident with multiple injuries as a mass shooting, reporters need to acknowledge the circumstances surrounding the event, such as indicating if it was gang-related, a domestic dispute, or an altercation at a public event, and leave mass shooting out of the title. Media should be using their platform to educate and provide background information on the gun violence they are reporting, its distinct causes, and its consequences.
Mass shootings, as defined by Congress, represent a specific and severe form of violence that deserves our focused attention and response. Mislabeling other forms of violence as mass shootings only serves to blur the lines and dilute the urgency needed to address these tragic events effectively before eventually, we ignore the headlines, forget the victims, and dismiss the “mass shooting” as another dispute gone awry.
