Many Americans think of school shootings as mass casualty events involving an adolescent with an assault-style weapon. But a new study says that most recent school shootings orchestrated by teenagers do not fit that image — and they are often related to community violence.
The study, published Monday in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, analyzed 253 school shootings carried out by 262 adolescents in the US between 1990 and 2016.
It found that these adolescents were responsible for only a handful of mass casualty shootings, defined as those involving four or more gunshot fatalities. About half of the shootings analyzed — 119 — involved at least one death. Among the events, seven killed four or more people.
A majority of the shootings analyzed also involved handguns rather than assault rifles or shotguns, and they were often the result of “interpersonal disputes,” according to the researchers from University of South Carolina and University of Florida.
I’ve been saying this for years now, and everyone just wants to say “GUNS BAD BAN GUNS”.
Fix the root issues, and you solve the problem. If you don’t address root problems, then you only change the way that the problem manifests. You could remove guns, and then you’d see a rash of stabbings, with calls for parents to lock their kitchen knives in safes, and bans on knives with blades over 2".
Are you saying there are no poor or crazy people in places like England? Because there are plenty of them, they just don’t have guns.
I am not. In fact, England (and Australia) both have an overall rate of violent crime–murder, battery, robbery, forcible rape–that’s quite comparable to the US. If you remove murder from the equation entirely, then England and Australia appear to have more violent crime than the US. Their crime is less lethal, but they’re have more of it. Despite the fact that, e.g. England bans carrying pocket knives for fear of knife crime. But both countries have very similar problems to the US, although Australia seems to have a mostly functional NHS, despite the constant attempts to cut funding. (England’s NHS is far, far less functional now than it was.)
If England and Australia were to adjust their system of governance and taxation to address the underlying issues, then it’s likely that they’d have far less violent crime.
So you agree that guns are the problem.
He also accidentally admitted that private gun ownership does nothing to prevent violent crime, given that “violent crime rates are comparable” between America and countries that don’t let insane death cults write their laws.
He tried to walk it back saying “actually the other countries are worse” but a quick look at the figures show they’re all within a few percent for things like rape and assault, until you get to America with its 400% higher homicide rate.
Some of that isn’t even well hidden, with “robbery” being included in his list of violent crimes, despite the low number of people killed during property thefts in Australia and the U.K.
Even giving you a free pass on “they’ll just do stabbings instead” (despite that not being true anywhere else in the world), that would still be a massive improvement over giving them semi-automatic weapons.
Stabbings are easier to flee, easier to disarm, slower and less lethal. If dogshit gun laws were scrapped after Columbine, easily half as many people would have been killed by domestic terrorists.
So you want to ban checks notes ‘interpersonal disputes’ ?
How about changing a community’s culture so bang-bang shooty-shooty isn’t the first response to checks notes disrespect.
Or we could just not have more guns than people, like everywhere else in the rest of the first world. But “fuck you I’ve got mine” is the unofficial motto of the United States of America after all.
More like fuck you I barley have shit and I’m not giving up my ability to protect myself from anyone that might be coming for it.
Killing someone to prevent them from stealing your stuff may well land you in prison. Guns cause a lot of misery in this country.
I get it btw. But still. I think we’d all be better off with fewer guns :\
Get what? That if you can’t fight and don’t own a gun then you’re at the mercy of the police you hate to protect you?
I’ve lived in a few different countries, and they have many of the same problems as the US, but there’s of course far fewer guns, and those places are safer. That difference in safety is really palpable.
Without all these guns, and the associated culture of violence and fear, perhaps American policing in general would be less violent. It’s something I’ve wondered about.
I am sympathetic to the desire for self-defense, arms as a safeguard against tyranny, etc. But I personally don’t think it’s worth this.
So it’s a complex issue, but I don’t think the 2A is a net positive. At least not anymore.
Really? What nations are as polarizing as the US? Seems to me the vast majority of nations that aren’t as violent as the US are not nearly as diverse or suffer from the same extent of wealth inequality.
Sweden, even with its anti-gun laws, has become the most dangerous scandinavian country by a longshot because they’re now dealing with racial problems the US has had to face for generations.
I should probably clarify that I don’t actually own a gun. My previous comment is just the attitude I typically see from people who do. I don’t live in an area with a high crime rate that would necessitate one and I’d be far more likely to use it on myself before I was ever in a self defense situation. That being said if I still lived in the town I grew up where there were break ins every few weeks many of which included assaults I would have one for sure.
It’s never worked in the past; but so much of America’s culture is predicated on winning the lottery, so sure you go ahead.
That’s objectively false, but you’re too far down your tribalistic rabbit hole to understand that.
No, I want to change community circumstances so that interpersonal disputes don’t lead to violence.
In most cases, people that aren’t living in pretty desperate circumstances aren’t turning to lethal violence as the first, best option for solving problems. People that feel like they have options don’t immediately jump there.
Do you believe poor people in the US are more desperate than in the rest of the world?
That’s a false dichotomy, and not even the correct answer to ask.
In countries with higher rates of poverty, you do, in fact, see far, far higher rates of murder and violence (robbery, battery, forcible rape) in general. Official tallies may not reflect those levels of violence, since there’s often indifference or incompetence from local government.
Of western countries, the US has one of, if not the highest rates of economic inequality. And yes, that’s going to lead to violence when you have poor people that have no practical way to not only get ahead, but merely stay even.
Sounds like a lie to me. Semi-automatic handguns are absolutely the fastest, most lethal and most common way to turn interpersonal disputes and property crimes into murder.
You can’t genuinely be looking to reduce these murders if you’re unwilling to change gun laws. It wouldn’t just require 100 years of work to solve inequality, it would require literal mind control.
Even if you pulled it off, there is still all the other motives you’re handwaving away, like domestic abusers and “responsible gun owners” answering their doorbells by opening fire.
It doesn’t take mind control, because once you change external circumstances, people tend to change their minds on their own without being forced into re-education camps, or going through cult programming.
Changing social conditions also reduces domestic violence. People that aren’t afraid of random crime–most of which is bullshit ginned up by Fox, OAN, etc.–don’t start blasting the second someone knocks on their door.
Sure, semi-automatic handguns are the fastest, easiest, most readily concealed way now to to turn arguments into murders, but you know what happens when you take the guns and don’t fix all the other shit? People start stabbing each other. Then you have to start trying to take all the knives. Then the clubs. Then bottles, and bricks, and hammers, and screwdrivers. You’re never going to be able to take all of the tools that people use to commit murder, because “bare hands” account for something like 5% of all homicides in the US (unless you’re proposing preemptive amputation?) Fix the underlying problems, and most of that violence–the violence that turns into murder–ends up going away on it’s own.
Even giving you a free pass on that actually being true, stabbings are both easier to flee and less lethal. It would be a genuine improvement
Isn’t it just fascinating that this slippery slope always starts at “guns”?
Somehow, it’s impossible to stop at “lets not sell guns to idiots and psychopaths” like sane people. Once we start down that road, we have to just keep banning more and more things forever, despite the fact none of those things are covered by the second amendment and could be banned right now if we actually wanted to.
You may as well be claiming “Driving under the influence? What next? Driving sober? Bikes? Horses? Legs?”.
Meanwhile, guns account for 81% of those homicides because they’re more lethal, in less time, with less chance of escaping or being interrupted.
Most of the guns used in those homicides are legally purchased, but that’s mostly academic given that 99% of guns used in crimes were originally legally purchased from dealers, pawnbrokers or manufacturers, clearly demonstrating that the background checks and storage laws are not even remotely adequate.
You keep accidentally admitting how much better things would be if Americas had gun laws in line with the rest of the world, instead of pretending every murder is inevitable like you wanted.
Sure. Let us know when you’re done building that utopia so we can look at actual crime stats that actually exist, rather than fantasy statistics that the pro-gun community insists will come true eventually.
Until then, why do you staunchly oppose measures designed to reduce the number of murderers armed with the tools you openly admit are best-in-class for murder?
First: Yes, that is the way things work. We’ve seen that happen in other countries. Moving outside of guns specifically, that’s happened with abortion rights; first it was just some abortions, then all of them (depending on the state), then the right to travel to another state, now they’re working on banning birth control and overturning no-fault divorce.
Second: No, 2A doesn’t specify guns, it says arms. So if you wanted to ban knives and swords because they’re arms, then there’s a 2A argument against it.
That’s not the argument you think it is. Yes, people use the best tool that they have available. If that tool magically didn’t exist–and there are more guns than people in the US–then people would switch to a different tool, and you’d be talking about how people used X because it’s better than Y, and so we need to ban X.
People in other countries have these same debates, trying to create ever stricter security measures to prevent crimes, even though they have far, far lower rates or murder. The argument is that there needs to be ever more invasive gov’t control, because that’s the only way to make people feel safe and secure.
Much like your utopia where guns don’t exist?
Why do you resist the social changes that would reduce violence across the board, and not just one specific subset using one tool? Why do you want society to stay sick while eliminating a single manifestation of that sickness?
Why didn’t the pro-gun community stop it? Aren’t you claiming right now that guns are required to stop rights being eroded?
Yes, I want people to have worse tools for killing innocent people. You’re openly admitting it would would be an improvement.
Sure thing. I assume its also fine for me to extrapolate your views out forever and claim your goal is to legalise hand grenades, claymores and rocket launchers for all Americans, including felons, as the first step to eventually making WMDs cheap and freely available to everyone and the only way to prevent that is to immediately ban all private gun sales.
Of course, those might be your actual views since they’re not uncommon in the pro-gun community, unlike the mythical gun control advocates who start with “lets not sell guns to people who have been making death threats” and don’t stop until they’ve banned hammers.
How dare people try and prevent preventable deaths. What scumbags.
I wonder why they have “far, far lower rates for murder” since obviously the only way to truly be safe is the cold embrace of an AR-15.
Did you forget the rest of the world exists and has gun control? They even change their gun laws over time in response to changing circumstances, rather than just ask slavers with wooden teeth their thoughts then vow to use that forever.
Sure, you could have tried your luck with that when the pro-gun crowd was blaming dumb shit like video games, rock music and the number of doors a building had, but what are you suggesting I oppose now?
I support increased access to mental health services, universal healthcare and massively reducing wealth inequality. This has been my consistent opinion for over 25 years, before doing mass shootings with your legal guns became a fad among the far-right.
But I’m never going to support maximizing the damage that criminals, abusers, idiots and domestic terrorists can do just because there might be less of them in 50 years, especially in return for bullshit promises about rights, democracy and personal safety that are less true in America than in countries with gun control.
deleted by creator
You’re missing the point, intentionally. The erosion of rights is the point; for the right wing, it’s the erosion of reproductive rights (and eventually the rights of women in general). For the people that believe they’re on the left, it’s gun rights, and eventually all rights to the tools of violence.
Which is also worse tools for defending themselves. So, again, not a win.
Yes. That’s correct. Private citizens could quite legally have artillery under the interpretation of the constitution that existed until 1934, when the National Firearms Act made it through judicial review due to prosecutorial malfeasance. And yes, I think that most felons should be allowed to be armed, because the law is structured in such a way that even non-violent felons have their rights stripped from them.
Okay, so you’re saying that there is no amount of evidence that would ever change your mind. Is that correct? So even if I could show you that other countries that have high levels of personal firearm ownership don’t see violence rates like the US does, you wouldn’t see that as relevant, because it doesn’t involve removing guns. Do I have that about right?
How, exactly, do you plan to do that?
Increase marginal tax rates back to pre-Nixon levels. Raise income taxes in general for the people making 50% over median. Wealth taxes on wealth in excess of $1M. Taxes on corporate profits that aren’t immediately reinvested. Investment in infrastructure (emphasizing public transit and walkable areas rather than more and bigger roads), and public education, combined with elimination of all charter/magnet schools, and any public funding of selective/private K-12 schools. Criminal justice reform with a focus on rehabilitation/reform rather than punishment, and diversion for drug-related and non-violent offenses. De-privatization of public services. National single-payer healthcare. High density public housing that’s funded in perpetuity so that it’s not allowed to decay. Minimum wage laws that are tied to CoL and inflation. De-suburbification/de-sprawling cities. Strengthen the NLRB, and give it not only teeth, but nuclear weapons. Etc.