1 out of every 15 American adults have been at a mass shooting, according to University of Colorado study

Stories from mass shooting survivors and their loved ones, as well as new research, are creating more awareness of gun violence. A
new study from the University of Colorado Boulder
shows that 1 in 15 American adults have been on the scene of a mass shooting. This study defines a mass shooting as an incident when four or more people are shot in a public space.
The research comes as those in the Boulder community gathered four years later to remember the 2021
King Soopers shooting
that took the lives of 10 people and impacted countless others.
That impact includes Erika Mahoney, whose father Kevin was killed while grocery shopping that day. Four years later, it's easy to see Mahoney's strong bond with her dad in family albums and frames throughout the house.
Mahoney showed CBS News Colorado some of those photos, describing them as she thumbed through.
"Here we're in the kitchen, and dad, I'm wearing my dad's giant jacket," Mahoney said. "It's motivating to see his face, but I also hear him saying, like, keep going."
As a former journalist, Mahoney is now dedicating her life to sharing stories like his and documenting the lasting impact of gun violence.
"The news covers [mass shootings] in the beginning, and the hardest part is those years in between where you're crying in the corner, or you can't go grocery shopping, or you are, you know, missing your dad and it's Father's Day," Mahoney said.
To showcase those moments and the generational pain that can follow
a mass shooting
, she's releasing a new podcast this spring.
Senseless
will feature more than a dozen people affected by gun violence in Boulder.
"At its heart, this podcast is truly a love letter to my dad, and it's about how we move forward after tragedy," Mahoney said.
One of her podcast guests will be David Pyrooz, a professor of sociology and criminologist at the Institute for Behavioral Science at CU Boulder. His episode will break down his new study that came up with the data behind the 1 in 15, or about 7% of U.S. adults on average that have been at the scene of a mass shooting.
"It means you were in the direct vicinity to where you could see the shooter. There were bullets that were fired in your direction, or if you couldn't directly see the shooter, that you could hear the gunshots," Pyrooz said.
The study came to that number by surveying 10,000 people last year. The research also details that more than 2% of U.S. adults have been injured during a mass shooting.
Pyrooz explains, "Mass shootings, you know, I know they occur across the world, but, you know, in the United States, there's just such a concerted interest and focus on it, and we should aim to understand this better."
Meanwhile, Mahoney continues to remember who her dad was and hopes the new data and personal stories together can showcase the
realities of mass violence
-- and move the needle towards stopping them.
"If we can realize that this affects so many people far beyond really any number can show, because I'm not included in the data, and I was traumatized, and so, you know, we I think that the ripple effect is even so much bigger than we can imagine," Mahoney said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

USA Today

3 hours ago

• USA Today

Medicaid handouts only create dependency. Able-bodied adults should work.

Does Medicaid need an overhaul? Does Republicans' proposed $800 billion cuts go too far – or not far enough? Readers respond in USA TODAY's Opinion Forum. With the deadline for President Donald Trump and Republicans' "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on the horizon, Americans are turning their attention to a major provision of the budget bill: changes to Medicaid. The bill calls for sweeping changes, including cuts of nearly $800 billion to the program, a mandatory work requirement of 80 hours per month, and an overhaul of the current Medicaid and Medicare systems – consolidating them for the purpose of centralized enrollment. Additional changes include banning federal funding for gender-affirming care and transitioning procedures and reducing the amount of federal funding allotted to states for noncitizens. As Congress debates these provisions before a final vote in the Senate, Americans are sounding off – largely in support of the program. More than 71 million Americans benefit from Medicaid, and new polls from KFF Health found 83% of respondents have a favorable view of Medicaid. More than half of respondents who are enrolled in Medicaid say changes to the program will make it "very difficult" to afford medications (68%), see a health care provider (59%) or get alternate insurance coverage (56%). A June 11 Quinnipiac University poll found half of American voters polled said funding for Medicaid should go up, not down, while an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released June 16 found that 50% of Americans think we spend too little on Medicaid. But we wanted to hear from you, our USA TODAY readers, directly. We asked what changes, if any, you want to see to the program and how Medicaid has impacted your life or the lives of those you know. Do the proposed cuts go too far? Or not far enough? Here's what you told us for our Opinion Forum. I couldn't have made it as a mom ‒ or cancer survivor ‒ without Medicaid As a Stage 3 breast cancer survivor, mother to a son with profound disabilities and a full-time working member of society, I've had to navigate the unimaginable. Without Medicaid, I could not have managed any of it. The program covers our son's in-home care, and it gave me the ability to focus on both my treatment and career. For families like mine, Medicaid is not a luxury ‒ it is the foundation that holds everything together. Proposed cuts threaten the care millions rely on. We must protect Medicaid so parents are not forced to choose among their health, their job and their children's needs. — Caroline Johnson, Louisville, Kentucky Able-bodied people should be working. Entitlements weren't meant to last forever. As I understand it, the only people who would be cut from Medicaid are able-bodied adults who would need to work a minimum number of hours a week to keep receiving it. I don't believe that disabled people, older folks and children would be affected. Also, illegal migrants would be kept off, because American taxpayers are not responsible for paying their way. We have enough American citizens who need help. Those who are not supposed to get these entitlements should be cut. These entitlement programs were never meant to be a way of life. They were supposed to be a safety net only for those who really needed them. Able-bodied adults should work. There is pride in working for what you need or want. Handouts only cause dependency, which is not good for anyone. Every citizen who is able should strive to be independent. The same should go for food stamps. It should only be for the really needy disabled, elderly and children with low incomes. — Renee Bertoni, Holley, New York Real government waste is MAGA's excess I am a retired Health and Human Services Department worker. I think this administration is so shortsighted about Medicaid and food assistance cuts for working families and individuals. If low-income people and working families have inadequate food and no medical coverage, it hinders their ability to work and function in society. All people deserve medical coverage and nutritious foods! I don't think I will ever support Republicans again. This is supposed to be a government for the people, by the people and of the people. These MAGA supporters are all lacking in human decency. Yes, I believe they will cut more and more because they are focused on self-indulgence. Increase taxes for the wealthy who have too much and know that "trickle-down economics" is just a buzz phrase. It doesn't work. Big cuts were made to the federal work force with no strategy and no concern for talented and dedicated employees, along with lots of publicity for fake fraud claims that didn't exist. The minions are hard at work trying to sell the public on their distorted strategy: more for them and less for everyone else. Let's think about the waste of the Trump military parade. That's what's shameful. — Joyce Schulz, Tawas City, Michigan As an ER doctor, I saw what cuts to Medicaid would cost us all As an emergency physician, I cared for uninsured patients who were signed up for Medicaid insurance in the emergency department. Medicaid health insurance allowed these patients to follow up with primary care doctors and providers who otherwise could not afford to care for uninsured people. Studies show that adding Medicaid insurance saves lives. And taking away Medicaid insurance leads to worse health outcomes. I am very concerned that any cuts to Medicaid insurance would lead to avoidable illness and even death for newly uninsured patients. Primary care physicians and specialists cannot afford to care for patients who lose their Medicaid health care coverage. Also, rural hospitals and rural clinics would lose a significant portion of their financial support from Medicaid. Primary care providers and rural hospitals would be forced to close their doors, leaving uninsured patients without access to care. I am afraid that Republican politicians will choose tax cuts for the rich over Medicaid health insurance for the poor. I think that Republican politicians should have their own government health insurance taken away from them. Why should taxpayers pay for the health insurance of these well-off Republicans who are voting to take away Medicaid from poor people? — Gary Young, Sacramento, California I've worked hard to get everything I have. Democrats don't seem to see people like me. I don't see the problem with having work requirements. If you can work, why not? As a taxpayer, I pay for my own medical insurance. I am single and have no dependents. I have no fault with us having a Medicaid program for the elderly, children and disabled, but that should be it unless you are working and need a short-term helping hand. I have been working full-time since I was 22, so I don't understand people having an issue with a work requirement to get medical coverage. I think we have to cut spending across the board. I hear Democrats talking about taking things away, but I don't seem to hear anything from them about how to cut spending. We are over $36 trillion in debt. If spending is not controlled, our country could go bankrupt, and then no one would have any programs to use. What is the Democrats' plan to get the debt under control? They had the past four years to do it, and you see where we are. I'm tired of the talk about these cuts going to the billionaires. We don't know for sure where it's going, and you can't understand how tired of this rhetoric people are. Additionally, I would like to see the cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development and Department of Education all codified so these programs do not exist. There seems to have been a bit of waste and abuse over many years that needs to be dealt with. I make under $70,000 a year, so I have worked hard to get where I am. I was a Democrat for over 35 years, and about five years ago, I went Republican, as parties seem to have switched. I believe that the Democrat Party is full of elitists who feel we poor peons will do what they tell us, rather than realizing a lot of peons can think for ourselves and should not be condescended to and not told we are bad peons if we disagree with them. — Teresa Loy, Tucson, Arizona My brother was saved by Medicaid. Many more would die without it. My brother had AIDS/HIV and AIDS-related cancer. He was too sick to work and relied on Medicaid for all his medical benefits, both physical and mental. He eventually worked for the nonprofit Hope and Help in Orlando. He was a mentor to others, a champion, an activist, an orator and a published writer. He died in August 2020. All his efforts and the efforts of many would die in vain without their medication that was available through Medicaid. I'm extremely worried. The effects aren't self-contained, and the negative effects would permeate into an already strained system. Medical insurance is unaffordable in this country's economy, and it only gets worse. The Republicans need to vote according to the wants and needs of their constituents and reinstall empathy in their party. Maybe that will resonate and 'trickle down.' We have to limit tax cuts for the wealthiest. And here's a novel idea: Let's go back to a time when employers paid for employees' health care and pensions. Those two items can't be supported by today's salaries. — Karen O'Donnell, Lake Mary, Florida

Business Journals

7 hours ago

• Business Journals

3 simple steps for employers to lower health care costs and ensure better employee care

It's no secret that the current health care system is unsustainable. Nearly half of Americans receive health care coverage through their employer and over the past two decades, employer-sponsored health care costs have risen by over 200%. Many businesses can no longer front the costs — and the burden is being shifted onto employees. The result? Health care has become unaffordable for many working Americans — for some employees cost shifting has made engaging care unaffordable and 40% of American adults are struggling with medical debt — a shockingly high number. Despite this astronomical rise in cost, most brokers and benefits consultants haven't changed the solutions they present to clients in decades. In our experience, only about 5-10% of brokers are offering their clients innovative alternatives and even fewer have fully embraced a different approach, leading to poor implementation and support when they do try something new. The reality is that health care operates as an inefficient market. Unlike most industries, higher costs do not necessarily equate to higher quality care — in fact, it can often be the opposite. We believe that by being proactive, transparent and strategic, employers can reverse this trend by reducing costs while ensuring their employees receive top-quality care. However, achieving transformational results demands a completely different approach. The four of us have spent years in this industry and have tailored a unique approach that enables us to achieve superior results. We've seen what works and what doesn't and the ineffective options continually peddled to employers. That's why we've joined forces to help employers to take control of their health care spend and save real money. Our approach We don't believe in a one-size-fits all health plans and we partner with HR leaders to bring their health care strategy to life while directly administering the change. This includes educating employees on what they need to know to make the most of their benefits. When you show people exactly how they can receive better care at a lower price, everyone wins. Our model is built on three pillars: education, pharmacy platform and Medicare Plus. Education: We empower members to navigate the health care system effectively and steer them towards high quality and cost-effective options. Navigating the health care system is hard and we take a hands-on approach, which helps members understand their choices and make informed decisions. This extra effort improves health outcomes while ensuring the best experience possible. According to publicly available data compiled by Image360, CT scans in Tampa, Florida, are typically billed between $4,500 and $9,700. Even after PPO discounts, health plan members and businesses still pay $2,200 to $4,800. The problem is, there's little transparency in pricing and high cost doesn't guarantee high quality. Imagine360 changes that. With Imagine360, the average cost for the same CT scan at the same facility drops to under $200. This translates to significant savings for the employee and the business. Pharmacy platform: Pharmacy spend is the fastest-growing expense when it comes to a health plan. Traditional solutions often lack transparency and instead function as profit centers. We craft innovative solutions to manage pharmacy costs, ensuring that members have access to affordable medications without compromising on quality. Medicare Plus: We provide a thoughtful alternative to conventional PPOs. This model offers robust coverage at significantly lower costs by anchoring reimbursements to fair, Medicare-based rates. The above approach collectively has proven to cut costs by nearly 25% on average. Through this approach, we've reduced the cost of health care so drastically that some clients now offer no-cost health care to all of their employees. At a time when most companies are forcing employees to pay upwards of thousands of dollars per month on health insurance premiums, our clients pick up the full cost of premiums for their employees. This difference is life-changing for many families. By adopting a three-pillar approach to health care benefits, these businesses have become highly sought-after employers in their communities. And it's not just beneficial for employees — it's advantageous for the health plan as well. When health care premiums are overpriced, only the highest utilizers enroll, which makes sense; you would only pay thousands of dollars a month in premiums if you anticipated high health care expenses. However, when coverage is affordable and well-structured, everyone participates, creating a healthier, more predictable and sustainable plan. If this sounds too good to be true, you're not alone. One employer came to us frustrated and skeptical. Every broker had pitched the same traditional solutions, none of which solved their problem. Their chief financial officer knew that if they could not control hospital claims costs, the business would be in trouble. We introduced Medicare Plus pricing as a strategic solution. We helped manage the learning curve for the first few months — but once leadership committed to the solution, the plan started working. Three years in, premiums, deductibles and copays have all dropped. Employees are getting better coverage, and the company has even added new benefits — while most of their peers are cutting back. Using an independent TPA Working with an independent third-party administrator (TPA) opens the door to a different and better playbook. Yes, it takes more work upfront — more education, communication, teamwork — but the payoff is worth it: a more flexible employee benefits solution that can lead to better care, lower costs, and long-term consistency. No more carrier swaps or yearly overhauls. We currently support 25 clients on this platform. With dedicated service teams, personalized enrollment education and long-term strategies, we help employers innovate — without impacting employee satisfaction. The result is a smoother, more positive experience. The road ahead We're all fighting the same fight: pushing back against a system that hides cost, limits choices, wastes money and is driving people to choose little or no coverage due to cost. But it doesn't have to be this way. With a three-pronged approach including employee education, pharmacy and Medicare Plus pricing, we're helping employers take back control of their health care costs. By putting people first and staying committed to value-based solutions, employers and brokers can finally break free from the old playbook — and build something better. McGriff is a Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC Company. Our solutions include commercial property and casualty, corporate bonding and surety, cyber, executive risk, management and professional liability, captives and alternative risk transfer programs, employee benefits, small business and personal lines insurance.

The Hill

21 hours ago

• The Hill

Thanks to imported drugs, America has lost control of its medicine cabinet

America is facing a growing crisis in its medical system — not from a lack of talent or innovation, but from a breakdown in the control, safety and supply of essential medicines. Our growing reliance on imports is now driving serious drug shortages, destabilizing supply chains and increasingly making medications unsafe. At the root of it is a hard truth: We no longer have control of the medicines we depend on every day. In 2002, America manufactured 83.7 percent of the pharmaceuticals it consumed. By 2024, that number had dropped to just 37.1 percent. Meanwhile, the U.S. pharmaceutical trade deficit has soared, reaching a record $118.3 billion in 2024. We didn't just outsource manufacturing — we outsourced the sovereignty and safety of our health care system. This means that nearly two-thirds of America's pharmaceutical supplies are now imported. Most critical medications, such as generic drugs, now come from China and India. China controls 80 to 90 percent of the global supply of active pharmaceutical ingredients — the chemical building blocks of modern medicine. Even drugs labeled 'Made in the USA' often chemically originate in China. And India, which produces about half of America's finished generic drugs, relies on China for up to 80 percent of its active pharmaceutical not a supply chain — it's a ticking time something goes wrong, American patients suffer. In 2023, the Food and Drug Administration shut down a single Indian plant responsible for 50 percent of the U.S. supply of cisplatin, a critical chemotherapy drug, after uncovering a 'cascade of failure' in safety practices and shredded documents soaked in acid. With no domestic backup, patients nationwide had their treatments delayed. That wasn't a fluke. 40 percent of U.S. generic drugs have only one FDA-approved manufacturer. Because of that single chokepoint, when one factory fails, the whole system can crack. We are now seeing widespread drug shortages across the medical system. Hospital pharmacists report an average of 301 critical drug shortages at any given time. And 85 percent say these shortages are moderately or critically affecting care. Doctors often lack crucial medicines such as antibiotics, sedatives and cancer drugs. These aren't obscure drugs. They're foundational medicines. But America no longer makes them. Even when imported drugs do arrive, they're not always safe. A 2025 study found that Indian generics are 54 percent more likely to cause serious side effects than their U.S.-made counterparts. Indian factory violations have also been tied to at least eight U.S. patient deaths. China's record is equally disturbing. In 2008, dozens of Americans died after receiving contaminated heparin from Chinese suppliers. This isn't what the American people want. In a national survey, 85 percent of hospital pharmacists said they would pay more for safer generics. But under today's rules, price overshadows quality. Hospitals have little oversight of drug quality — and foreign producers face few consequences for cutting corners. Even the federal government is flying blind. A 2023 Department of Defense review found that 22 percent of essential military-use drugs had unknown ingredient sourcing. That's a national security April, the Trump administration took a necessary step by launching an investigation into generic pharmaceutical imports that correctly frames the issue as a national security threat. But that recognition alone isn't enough. To address this crisis, Washington should impose targeted tariffs on generic drugs from adversarial nations. It must also rebuild domestic pharmaceutical production through tax credits and long-term contracts. America urgently needs full transparency in drug labeling to disclose where drugs and their ingredients are made. The FDA must step up — with stronger enforcement abroad and a ban on imports from repeat safety violators. And to secure critical ingredients during market disruptions, Washington must pursue a long-term vision that includes a 'strategic pharmaceutical reserve.' This isn't just protectionism. It's a restoration of America's medical security. No nation can call itself sovereign if it can't produce its own medicines, and no patient is safe if their health care depends on quality control in a factory 8,000 miles decades, we were told that offshoring production would make things cheaper, smoother and more efficient. But America can no longer depend on unstable foreign suppliers. It's time to restore our pharmaceutical independence and take back control of our medicine cabinet. Andrew Rechenberg is an economist at the Coalition for a Prosperous America.