Most school shootings aren’t mass killings, study finds, and they’re often driven by community violence
Most school shootings aren’t mass killings, study finds, and they’re often driven by community violence
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.
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.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Sure, but there's still a difference between school violence with guns and school violence with fists
Typically, the opportunity to get a gun. But the violence that motivates either is typically the same. That’s why school violence prevention is, itself, typically the same, regardless of how it may end.
"My son got beat up in school today"
"My son got shot and killed in school today"
It's the guns. It's always been the guns. And that's why this country is uniquely dealing with this problem. It's not hard to see it, unless you don't want to.
Stopping violence before either of those things happens is the point. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather neither of those happen. 
Taking the nihilist and defeatist attitude that one of those must happen, and therefore we must settle for it with half-measures meant only to prevent the other is bullshit. 
Restricting access to guns is specifically achievable (see also: most of the rest of the world) and would save many lives.
In tandem, sure let's work on preventing violence in general. I'm all in favor, but achieving this semi-utopian goal seems far more challenging.
Nobody said it wouldn’t be difficult, but it’s better than putting up with a bullied child— or a dead one.
Schools should be safe spaces for children to learn, not battlefields to navigate.
Then restrict gun ownership. It's the most rational action which can be taken to stop American classrooms being stained by blood.
But... I know I am just venting. I know this isn't going to happen. Millions of Americans are demonstrably fine with other people losing their little girl or boy, their small bodies torn apart by bullets, just so they can have a gun for whatever reason. It's just the way it is, sadly.
Obviously, gun ownership should be restricted. What I’m saying, is that should be one part of a multifaceted approach  to address the many types of school violence. But my point here is that regulating gun ownership does not address the root cause of school violence, only a symptom. 
Obviously, gun ownership should be restricted.
Judging by the downvote brigade whenever somebody argues for gun control, which also plagues Reddit, it seems not so obvious to many.
Might not be what you’re saying, but how you’re saying it
Perhaps. I think it's pretty obvious no matter how it's phrased, or who posts it, comments critical of unrestricted gun ownership typically get downvoted without a lot of replies. At least you are engaging and we're having a conversation.