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.

  • pgp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    So if it’s not a mass shooting, we should be fine with it, that’s the angle?

    • MicroWave@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      An example from the article:

      Sathya, who was not involved in the new study, says it is important to highlight the difference between a mass shooting at a school and a school shooting brought on by community violence because the perpetrators often look different and are committing these acts of violence for different reasons. Therefore, the respective solutions look very different, as well.

      • BURN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        So basically “black people commit more violence” is what this is trying to say.

        What a useless, trashy, racist article

        • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          From the quote that was provided to you:

          Therefore, the respective solutions look very different, as well.

          There needs to be a distinction so that it can be more appropriately and efficiently prevented.

            • gregorum@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              But that doesn’t remove the impetus for violence. Preventing school violence requires more than simply removing the weapons for violence.

              • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure, but there’s still a difference between school violence with guns and school violence with fists

                • gregorum@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • farcaster@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    “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.

            • Occamsrazer@lemdro.id
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It might partially solve for it, by reducing severity of these acts, but guns are really just a means to violence. There are plenty of other ways to enact violence if that’s what you want to do.

              • gregorum@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The fact that guns are easy to get, easy to use, and are a means to extreme, and usually fatal violence is a huge factor to consider in the increase in the violence they contribute to.  Not all weapons are created equal, and the type of weapon they are cannot be weighed equally to other weapons when calculating how each type of weapon contributes to violence. And especially considering the fact that most lethal violence that is committed is committed with a gun. 

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      We should be angry about the media narrative pushed by some that banning guns that look scary and limiting magazine sizes will do anything.

      This shows that teaching non-violent conflict resolution, and getting the larger community to buy in would eliminate almost all shootings. Students need better interpersonal skills, and they need role models to show what those skills look like.

      • farcaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No matter what you do, there’s always going to be people freaking out and having homicidal urges. People are imperfect that way.

        Maybe that’s why most of the rest of the world doesn’t allow them have tools to easily kill people at a distance.

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe that’s why most of the rest of the world doesn’t allow them have tools to easily kill people at a distance.

          Most of it actually does – very few places have total bans on firearms, they just don’t let people buy semi-automatic weapons on a whim.

          It’s gruelling to accurately explain what gun control is to every pro-gun dildo on social media that feels entitled to a personal explanation (that they’ll spit back in your face anyway).

          But its important to remember that the pro-gun community isn’t fighting “no guns for anyone ever”, they’re fighting “you need to pass a background check, prove you know how to safely store and use a firearm and not hit your wife”