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.
The fact that there is enough statistics for this study to happen is fucked up.
Jesus Fucking Christ, pick a side, article:
Average age of shooter was 16
“It’s not really about gun ownership”
More than half of the shooters got the firearm they used from a family member or a relative. About 30% got a weapon from the illegal market, while 22% obtained weapons from friends or acquaintances.So 70% got it through someone who legally owned the gun already, and 30% bought it illegally. A 16 year old cannot purchase a gun legally.
SURE SEEMS LIKE PEOPLE OWNING A GUN IS A FACTOR, THEN, HUH
SURE SEEMS LIKE PEOPLE OWNING A GUN IS A FACTOR, THEN, HUH
We can wait until you figure out the connection as mentioned in your own comment, but we can only wait so long.
If you expect me to secure my guns properly, then that makes it more difficult for me to imagine the totally bitchin’ scenario where dozens of armed criminals break into my house and have need to immediately defend my family like John Wick
Even John Wick buried his weapons under concrete in his basement, he could kill you with a pencil though.
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.
Their crime is less lethal,
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.
So you want to ban checks notes ‘interpersonal disputes’ ?
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.
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.
People start stabbing each other
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
Then you have to start trying to take all the knives. Then the clubs. Then bottles, and bricks, and hammers, and screwdrivers.
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?”.
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
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.
Fix the underlying problems, and most of that violence–the violence that turns into murder–ends up going away on it’s own.
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?
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.
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.
Meanwhile, guns account for 81% of those homicides because they’re more lethal,
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.
Sure. Let us know when you’re done building that utopia so we can look at actual crime stats that actually exist
Much like your utopia where guns don’t exist?
Until then, why do you staunchly oppose measures designed to reduce the number of murderers
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?
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.
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, 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
Yes, I want people to have worse tools for killing innocent people. You’re openly admitting it would would be an improvement.
and you’d be talking about how people used X because it’s better than Y, and so we need to ban X.
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.
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.
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.
Much like your utopia where guns don’t exist?
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.
Why do you resist the social changes that would reduce violence across the board, and not just one specific subset using one tool?
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.
Is “community violence” the politically correct terminology for blaming gangs?
