ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥ 7% of U.S. adults have been present at the scene of a mass shooting in their lifetime, and more than 2% have been injured during one, according to new ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥ Boulder research.

The study, published March 7 in the journal JAMA Network Open, also found that younger generations were significantly more likely to have been exposed than their parents or grandparents were.

Generation Z—adults born after 1996—were at greatest risk.

“This study confirms that mass shootings are not isolated tragedies but rather a reality that reaches a substantial portion of the population, with profound physical and psychological consequences,â€� said senior author David Pyrooz, a professor of sociology and criminologist in the Institute for Behavioral Science at ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥ Boulder. “They also highlight the need for interventions and support for the most affected groups.â€�

A ripple effect

For the study, Pyrooz and his colleagues surveyed a nationally representative sample of 10,000 adults in January 2024. (The researchers chose January because the month tends to see a lull in mass shootings.) They asked a series of questions, including: “Have you personally ever been physically present on the scene of a mass shooting in your lifetime?�

The group defined “mass shooting� as a gun-related crime where four or more people were shot in a public space. The researchers defined “physically present� as “in the immediate vicinity of where the shooting occurred at the time it occurred, such that bullets were fired in your direction, you could see the shooter, or you could hear the gunfire.�

Just under 7% of respondents answered yes. Just over 2% of respondents said they had been injured, which not only includes having been shot, but also hit by shrapnel, trampled by people fleeing the scene or other injuries.

“We are talking about one out of every 15 people in the United States,� said Pyrooz. “These are really high numbers for this seemingly unique and small subset of gun violence,� said Pyrooz.

While these numbers might seem high, Pyrooz said he was not surprised by the survey results. A single mass shooting can impact far more people than many realize.

For instance, during the 2017 shooting at the Route 91 Harvest Music festival in Las Vegas, the shooter killed 60 people and wounded 413 others. But another 454 people were injured during the ensuing panic as people fled to safety. In all, there were about 22,000 people at the concert—plus onlookers from surrounding hotels on the Las Vegas strip.

“That translates to about one out of every 11,000 Americans who were on the scene of that shooting alone,� said Pyrooz. “Continue that to other events that have occurred around the country and the numbers, unfortunately, add up.�

The ‘mass shooting generation’

Black people and males were more likely to have witnessed a mass shooting.

More than half of the respondents who had been present during a mass shooting said it happened in the last decade—a finding that reaffirms the notion that younger generations are experiencing a cultural phenomenon their parents didn’t have to deal with.

“Our findings lend credence to the idea of a ‘mass shooting generation,’� said Pyrooz. “People who grew up in the aftermath of Columbine have these unique experiences that are really distinguishable from the older population.�

Three-quarters of the respondents experienced mass shootings in their local communities—in places like bars or restaurants, schools, shopping outlets and synagogues.

The income and education level of respondents had no measurable impact on their chances of being present, or injured, at a mass shooting.

The aftermath

The study did not quantify how mass shootings impact mental health, but Pyrooz and his colleagues are publishing a forthcoming paper that will.

It found that about three-quarters of those who were present at the scene of a mass shooting but uninjured still experienced psychological distress, including fear, anxiety and depression. (For comparison, about 20% of people in the general population report these symptoms.)

Pyrooz hopes the ongoing research will help fill a research gap around the public health impacts of the relatively new, and understudied, phenomenon of mass shootings. He also hopes it will underscore the need to support programs aimed at reducing gun violence, and bolster supporting those suffering lingering effects from exposure.

He can still remember the sound of the sirens from the March 22, 2021, mass shooting at a King Soopers just miles from his office in Boulder.

He wasn’t personally exposed but knows what a toll it took on his own community.

“It’s not a question of if one will occur in your community anymore but when,� he said. “We need to have stronger systems in place to care for people in the aftermath of this tragic violence.�

Related Articles

How do lockdown drills and metal detectors in schools impact students?

When someone sees warning signs that a student may become violent, what should they do?

What strategies work best to prevent bullying?

In the past decade, the U.S. Department of Justice has invested heavily in research projects aimed at understanding the root causes of school violence and determining how best to make K-12 schools safer.

A new ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥ Boulder-led review of the findings provides some answers.

“We know that addressing school climate, physical security and student behavior problems are all important, but we really haven’t had clear guidance on what schools should do,� said lead author Sarah Goodrum, a research professor in the Prevention Science Program at the Institute for Behavioral Science. “This report is the first to clearly spell out what the evidence shows.�

Seeking solutions after Sandy Hook

For the 59-page report published in January, Goodrum and her colleagues pored over more than 150 research papers funded by NIJ’s Comprehensive School Safety Initiative (CSSI). The CSSI initiative grew out of the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, in which an attacker gunned down 20 children and six staff members in Newtown, Connecticut.

Today, school violence remains a serious problem.

In 2024 alone, at least 330 shootings occurred at K-12 schools in the United States, according to the K-12 School Shooting Database. That’s the second highest number ever—down just 19 from the record in 2023. Already in 2025, 29 shootings have occurred at U.S. schools.

While such tragedies dominate the headlines, research shows they are almost always preceded by subtler warning signs, including troubling behavior or lesser acts of violence by the perpetrator, or a school climate in which bullying is pervasive or mental health issues go unaddressed, said Goodrum.

“After a tragic school shooting, we often hear people wanting to look for the panacea—an easy, fast solution that will make us feel like it's OK to send our kids to school,� said Goodrum, noting that physical security measures tend to get the most attention. “We tend to neglect the importance of the relationships that educators have with students as an important way of preventing harm and promoting wellbeing. School safety takes a multi-pronged approach.�

Among other things, the report recommends that schools take these steps.

Gauge school climate

Schools are encouraged to administer a climate survey at least every other year to students, parents and staff to assess how safe they feel at school; whether they are subject to bullying or harassment; and whether there is a trusted adult they can turn to if they are in trouble or see something concerning. With results in hand, school administrators can then choose evidence-based programs to address gaps.

“We found that in schools that have a positive school climate, there are not only lower levels of bullying, victimization, fighting, substance use and suspension, but also higher attendance rates and stronger academic performance,� said Goodrum.

Create a continuum of response

Goodrum warns against one-size-fits-all policies to address student behavior problems.

“Research consistently finds that a ‘get tough’ or zero-tolerance approach is ineffective and can damage school climate, impede academic progress and create disparities across racial and ethnic groups,� Goodrum said.

Instead, the report recommends a continuum of responses. This might range from providing support to address trauma, depression or anxiety fueling minor problems early on (like pushing in the lunch line or acting out in class) to suspending or expelling a student deemed by a team to be a threat for more serious violence.

Address physical security thoughtfully

School officials should be discerning when selecting physical security measures, said Goodrum. Little research exists on surveillance cameras (which more than 81% of schools now use) and metal detectors, and most of that research has been done by vendors.

“We don’t know if having surveillance cameras or metal detectors reduces crime and bullying in schools, and we do know that there can be some downsides,� she said.

For instance, one study found that while security cameras outside made people feel supported, cameras inside were associated with “decreased perceptions of safety, equity and support.�

Research on lockdown drills is also mixed, with some studies showing they make students and staff feel more prepared, while others show they elevate stress and make students more scared of being attacked in school.

Encourage upstander reporting

In almost all of the more than 170 averted cases in the National Policing Institute’s Averted School Violence Database, a concerned citizen, or upstander, helped to thwart violent plans by reporting their concern to someone.

“Having an anonymous reporting systemâ€� like ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥â€™s Safe2Tell, and teaching students how to use it is critical,â€� said Goodrum. Safe2Tell is also available to students at ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥ Boulder.

Implement universal interventions

While targeting at-risk kids for support is important, research also shows that as many as 70% to 80% of violent offenders don’t fall into this high-risk category, said Karl Hill, professor of psychology and neuroscience and director of the Prevention Science Program at ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥ Boulder.

The new NIJ report is unique in that it also emphasizes the need to provide services—like anti-bullying programs and social and emotional learning programs—for all students, not just those at higher risk.

“These universal strategies can reduce the overall background noise of violence in a school and make these tragic acts of violence less likely,� he said.

Goodrum acknowledged that some schools lack the staff or funding to implement a multi-tiered system of supports or programs.

If schools can only do one thing to improve safety, what should they do?

“I would ask: Does every student have a trusted adult they can talk to when a problem arises,� said Goodrum. “It’s these interpersonal connections that provide the building blocks for a positive school climate, which enhances student wellbeing and school safety.�

ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥â€™s anonymous reporting platform allows the ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥ Boulder community to report safety concerns to people who can help. Safe2Tell’s reporting process is simple: Call 1-877-542-7233 to speak with a live, trained analyst or fill out a form on the or mobile app (available in the App Store and Google Play). Reports can be made 24/7, 365 days a year, and in multiple languages.

Related Articles

Editor's Note: This interview was conducted before Presidents Zelenskyy and Trump met at the White House and before Trump paused U.S. military aid to Ukraine. 

President Donald Trump says negotiations to bring peace between Ukraine and Russia are moving along quickly. In a break from United States foreign policy precedent, however, Ukraine is not involved in said talks, sparking outrage in Ukraine and across Europe. 

Now, a possible mineral deal between the U.S. and Ukraine may be on the table, with vague details of what it includes and when and how it may be signed. 

Sarah Wilson Sokhey is an associate professor at the University of ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥ Boulder who specializes in comparative politics and political economy in post-communist Central and Eastern European countries. She sat down with ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥ Boulder Today to give her take on the evolving relationships between the United States, Russia, Ukraine and Europe.  

What’s going on with the relationships between the United States, Ukraine and Russia? 

There's recently been a huge shift in the US foreign policy with the new Trump administration, given that the previous policy was to isolate Russia for its war of aggression against Ukraine. One of the big things is that Russia and the United States have recently met. I can’t overstate how huge of a reversal it is on foreign policy, that the U.S. would be having talks about peace in a country without that country present, as if it’s not an independent country. That's a very imperialist kind of model where the big countries decide what happens to the smaller countries.

Also, the United Nations recently voted on a resolution about peace in Ukraine and the United States allied itself with Russia, North Korea, Belarus—countries that did not vote with a majority-approved U.N. resolution to end the conflict in Ukraine, affirm that Russia was to blame and declare Russian troops should leave Ukraine immediately. 

It's really a huge about-face in U.S. foreign policy. It’s hard to overstate the implications of that for the world. It also means the United States does not align itself with Europe anymore, and that's unprecedented in recent times.

How did we get here? 

The war started in 2014 with the territorial invasion. The full scale invasion was three years ago. For many Ukrainians, this hasn’t just been three years for them, this is more than a decade of fighting, although certainly the full scale invasion massively escalated the war. 

What we’re hearing from President Trump now is a repetition of Russian propaganda that has been out in the world for as long as Putin has been saying it. But now we see the American president repeating Russian propaganda and Putin's lies about Ukraine. Putin said that Zelenskyy was a dictator, for example, a false claim recently repeated by Trump. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy won by an overwhelming majority in 2019. He had the largest winning majority of any Ukrainian president when he won. He would have been up for reelection in 2024, but they're under wartime and cannot hold elections. The notion that Russia is blaming Ukraine for not having elections while Russia is bombing Ukraine is just mind boggling. A close colleague of mine sent video from the past weekend of the extended overnight drone attacks in Kyiv. These are not conditions under which elections can be held.

Furthermore, reliable polling data from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology shows that Zelenskyy currently has a 57% approval rating and that the majority of Ukrainians agree that now is not the time to hold elections.

How does Europe factor into all of this? 

Ukraine is in a very precarious and tough situation now and leaning heavily on its European allies. And Europe has been rallying to that call. The United Kingdom, which of course is not a European Union member, has been a firm supporter of Ukraine. The EU is still a firm supporter of Ukraine as well, but we’re also seeing how daunting of a task it is for Europe to take on more in the absence of U.S. support for Ukraine. 

The Trump administration's actions will have a devastating effect on relations with Europe. It will likely take decades to rebuild trust between the United States and European allies. I think we're only seeing the beginning of the implications of cutting ties and cutting allyship with European powers. 

What do you think President Trump gets out of aligning himself with Russia and Putin?  

Trump and the Trump administration appear to be primarily and solely motivated by power, wealth and a transactional kind of politics. 

So, what wealth and power can he get out of siding with Russia when the rest of the world are saying they're the aggressors? 

There's probably a lot of potential opportunities Trump sees. Perhaps there could be business deals and trade agreements with Russia. In the recent talks between the U.S. and Russia, there were talks about renewing economic cooperation and economic ties. 

In a larger sense, it could be influence over certain territories of the world. It's likely, or possible at least, that the Trump administration sees allying itself with Russia as a potential leverage point it can use with other countries. Essentially signaling the U.S. will not promise on any ideological grounds that we are your allies; that's something that has to be continually negotiated. 

It looks like Presidents Zelenskyy and Trump are working on a raw materials deal. What kind of impact could a deal like that have?

There was a deal previously proposed that Zelenskyy strongly rejected, where the U.S. would get an enormous portion of Ukraine's mineral wealth from the country. And this goes to the transactional nature of how the Trump administration is doing business. Zelenskyy had initially hoped to meet with President Trump, which was rejected, all while Zelenskyy has generally been pretty respectful of President Trump, despite the challenging situation.

On Wednesday (Feb. 26) it was announced that some agreement had been reached about Ukraine sharing its mineral wealth with the US although not all of the details have been released, and both sides are claiming to have gotten a good deal (or for Ukraine, at least a better deal) in this version of the agreement. This may be useful for Ukraine if it keeps the lines of communication and negotiation open with the Trump administration. 

How does this end for both sides, Russia and Ukraine? 

Russia's goals are not realistic—there cannot be a total domination of Ukraine. Russia and Putin have already failed in their main objective to control Ukraine.  Russia has been using its full military force for three years and has still had to turn to North Korean weapons and North Korean soldiers to keep even waging battle. On Thursday, Feb. 27th, it was announced that even more North Korean troops are being sent to Russia.

For Ukraine, independence, freedom and peace are absolutely possible as long as they have the support of Europe and, ideally, the support of the United States.

What would you like the public to know about this? 

Amid all of this, it will be very important for the public to use reliable news sources. Sources like the BBC and The Guardian are doing an excellent job reporting on Ukraine and fact-checking erroneous statements about the war. It’s vital the world pay attention to this war that has consequences for all of us.

I recommend the following recent coverage: 

ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥ Boulder Today regularly publishes Q&As with our faculty members weighing in on news topics through the lens of their scholarly expertise and research/creative work. The responses here reflect the knowledge and interpretations of the expert and should not be considered the university position on the issue. All publication content is subject to edits for clarity, brevity and university style guidelines.

Related Articles

ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥ Boulder doctoral candidate Chilton Tippin is working to document migrant mortality in El Paso.

Related Articles

The current International Cricket Council Champions Tournament highlights how national rivalries and geopolitical tensions can meet on playing fields.

Related Articles

Related Articles

Fifty years after Frank Robinson became the first Black manager in Major League Baseball, the league is struggling with a significant decline in Black players and leaders.

Related Articles

Political science professor Federiga Bindi says the new Islamic rebel-led government is telling the West what it wants to hear, but the situation on the ground is concerning.

Related Articles

Related Articles

The success of simulcasts means that fans can expect to see more creative takes on traditional sports, like SpongeBob SquarePants recently calling an NFL Wild Card game.

Related Articles