On the hunt for a new way to measure the impact of mass shootings
The revelation came to my wife after many frustrating conversations with pro-gun lawmakers in the bowels of congressional offices on Capitol Hill. She’s a smarter gun law advocate and a survivor of the Highland Park parade shooting.
“I had this idea that they would be swayed by the facts,” she said. “You know, how many people and children were shot, who has died, the damage that the weapons inflicted.”
She remembers she met with one particular US representative. He was unmoved.
“The numbers are so small, statistically speaking,” he said.
Her gut told her there was a disconnect somewhere in people’s mental models about mass shootings. What happened during a mass shooting didn’t align with the way people thought about them. She started studying the way the media covered mass shootings. A pattern started to emerge.
“The numbers are so small, statistically speaking,” he said, unmoved.
Historically, news coverage emphasized the number of dead and wounded, then usually coughed up a perfunctory description of the shooter and their motives. There was scant mention of anything else.
