The Pandemic Hasn’t Slowed America’s Other Public Health Crisis: Gun Violence

Mass shootings may be on lockdown, but the killing continues.

In Dayton, Ohio, residents mourn the victims of a mass shooting one year later.Jim Noelker/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Last night, at least 21 people were shot at a cookout in Washington, DC. Christopher Brown, a 17-year-old, was killed. Three weeks ago, nine people were shot in front of a restaurant in the capital. In July, there were four shootings in Detroit in which at least four people were killed or wounded. In Chicago, 14 people were shot outside a funeral home in late July.

As Americans locked down and classrooms and public places emptied this spring, there was speculation that one silver lining of the pandemic would be fewer large-scale shootings. But that has not happened. 

In March, the number of people killed by shootings involving at least four injuries doubled in comparison with a year earlier. Perhaps this was the result of the lag time due to lockdowns rolling out at different speeds. In April, there was a major dip (24 percent) in the number of large-scale shootings. Yet since then, there hasn’t been a sustained decrease in the violence. The Gun Violence Archive has recorded 262 shootings with four or more injuries that have occurred across the country since April. In May, there were 59 such shootings, more than any month since the archive began collecting data in 2013. That was quickly topped by June (95) and July (87). 

These shootings aren’t covered in the same way as the bloody rampages in schools, churches, stores, and night clubs that have come to be seen as an “epidemic.”

Part of the issue is which incidents are considered mass shootings. The Gun Violence Archive uses a broader definition than many outlets. Taking its lead from the FBI and criminologists, Mother Jones‘ own database of mass shootings defines a “mass shooting” as a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed. This effectively codes out incidents like the one in Washington, DC, yesterday. (Unless three more victims die, in which case it would be considered a mass shooting.) Yet, the shootings that don’t get the mass shooting designation still cause a massive human and economic toll. And no matter how they are labeled, they’re key to understanding the current calls to change policing in America.

As Samantha Michaels notes in her recent Mother Jones feature on efforts to stem gun violence in Oakland, California, for “Black men between the ages of 15 and 24 in the United States, homicide, mostly by gunfire, is still the leading cause of death by far, killing more of them than the next nine top causes of death combined.” That violence, which often leads local TV coverage even as it’s ignored outside the communities where it happens, has been used to justify the aggressive policing which has in turn sparked the current movement to remake American policing.

More shootings, combined with the coronavirus, could fuel the argument that the solution isn’t fewer, but more cops. In Detroit, police shot two men while investigating the July shootings. D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham told the Washington Post that he thought that people released from jail because of the pandemic have been behind some of the recent violence. President Donald Trump has used the violence to call for increasing the presence of federal law enforcement in cities such as Chicago and New York. 

The death and chaos of our current moment has perhaps muted our memory of past violence. It’s been a little over a year since the back-to-back mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, in which 9 people died; and El Paso, Texas, in which 23 were killed. Virtual memorials were recommended by Dayton, fearing an outbreak of COVID-19. In El Paso, residents marched, noting the white supremacy that fueled the rampage. President Donald Trump, who briefly entertained pushing for some gun control measures following those shootings, did not publicly note the anniversary of either. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate