Here’s the study, if you bother to click two links deep from this posted article.

jamanetwork.com/journals/…/2831132

They define a mass shooting as 4+ people struck with a bullet.

2% of people report being injured because being trampled in a stampede or struck from a ricochet or bullet fragment counts as an injury.

Stampede and ‘crowd-squeeze’ injuries are quite common in densely crowded areas where a shooting, or fire, or something incites a general panic and rush to flee, and can cause as much or more deaths and injuries in very dense crowds than the actual danger being fleed from.

…

Maybe actually read the methodology before constructing a strawman version of it and then tearing that down because your personal experience doesn’t match broader data.

Your caricatured criticism of how they obtained the data, how they structured the survey, is completely baseless and innacurate.

You say you’re 54, so by the study’s definition, you are Gen X, and are thus about twice as likely to have never been present for a mass shooting as a Millenial, about three times as likely to have never been present at a mass shooting as Gen Z.

See Table 3.

…

You’re doing the stereotypical boomer thing, making up baseless nonsense critiques and assuming everyone involved is comically incompetent to justify your gut reaction.

The reason surveys are done is because you can’t actually have any idea about broad social patterns when your only actual data point is the anecdote of your single life and its experiences.

What’s actually sad is how confident you are in your own baseless, made up strawman criticisms and personal incredulity.

If you think your criticisms have merit, I look forward to your own academically published paper taking down the specific methodological flaws you seem to think exist in a paper written by 3 PhDs in the fields of Sociology and Criminology, who are well trained in statistics and survey methodology.