On the surface, today's Associated Press report about a significant decline in mass killings could be seen as a rare example of a mainstream press outlet not trying to scare its readers about "gun violence." The AP's headline, "Mass killings in 2025 in the US hit the lowest level since 2006" is unquestionably good news, and its lede is also straightforward in its reporting.
A shooting last weekend at a children’s birthday party in California that left four dead was the 17th mass killing this year — the lowest number recorded since 2006, according to a database maintained by The Associated Press and USA Today in partnership with Northeastern University.
After that, though, the AP's piece quickly devolves into a "why you shouldn't celebrate this good news" harangue cosplaying as straight journalism.
Experts warn that the drop doesn’t necessarily mean safer days are here to stay and that it could simply represent a return to average levels.
We then get a quote from Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, who says, “Sir Isaac Newton never studied crime, but he says ‘What goes up must come down.'"
Fox adds that the decline is more likely a "regression to the mean", and says he wouldn't be on the decline continuing next year. "What goes down must also go back up.”
True enough, but would James have bet on last year's trend continuing this year? According to his database, mass killings declined by 20% in 2024, and are down by another 23% this year. Why wouldn't he bet on the trend continuing in 2026? Crime does rise and fall, but generally speaking the historic spike seen in 2020 was an aberration of epic proprortions compared to crime trends since the early 1990s, which have shown a steady and consistent decline.
We may be seeing a regression to the mean, but the mean may also be trending downward at the same time. It just seems like an unnecessarily pessimistic take, especially coming from someone who's rightfully pointed out that mass public shootings are "exceptionally uncommon events" to begin with.
The AP acknowledges that fact in the next paragraph, when it quotes Metropolitan State University professor James Densley.
“Because there’s only a few dozen mass killings in a year, a small change could look like a wave or a collapse,” when really it’s just a return to more typical levels, Densley said. “2025 looks really good in historical context, but we can’t pretend like that means the problem is gone for good.”
"More typical levels." "Regression to the mean." These statements make it appear that we're just returning to the "normal" level of mass killings, whatever that number is. But as the AP's headline states, this is the lowest number in twenty years, and we've now had two years in a row where the number of these heinous crimes has declined significantly. Why aren't Fox and Densley at least willing to entertain the possibility that this the start of a longer trend?
The AP article suffers from a similarly myopic point of view when looking at factors that might be playing a role in the decline. Densley says improvements in medical care may be saving more lives, which in turn reduces the number of mass killings (which is defined by four or more deaths).
That may be true, but according to the Gun Violence Archive, we're also seeing fewer mass shootings this year. The GVA reports 381 mass shootings in 2025 (defined as shootings in which four or more people are killed or injured), down from 503 in 2024, which in turn was down from 2023. Medical advances alone don't account for the decline in mass killings. There's simply less violence taking place.
The AP report, meanwhile, doesn't even mention the fact that these historic declines in violent crime are taking place in a country where "shall issue" right to carry is the law of the land (however imperfectly applied) in all 50 states. In fact, the pandemic crime surge started declining in 2022, the same year the Supreme Court issued its Bruen decision.
This reduction in mass shootings is happening during the greatest expansion of carry rights in modern history, by the way. The opposite of what antigunners predicted. https://t.co/8p3TWKaamd
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) December 2, 2025
Now, I'm not suggesting that the expansion of the right to bear arms is primarily responsible for the drop in violent crime and mass shootings. But as Moros says, gun control activists were predicting the exact opposite of what we're seeing now, and it's at least worth mentioning that those fears were completely unfounded.
The AP story is awfully doom-and-gloom for a piece on the lowest number of mass killings in two decades, and needlessly so. Yes, violent crime will trend upward again at some point. No, the Bruen decision isn't primarily responsible for the historic declines in murder, mass killings, and mass shootings. But it is still unquestionably good news that these declines are taking place, and there's no reason to assume that we'll see a sudden reversal next year.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member