school shooting

[kaysixteen]

Random thoughts and questions:

1) There are a lot of guns in Canada, right, but the school shootings (and likely also the active shooter drills?) do not really occur there?  Why do we think that this is so?

2) More or less everything that has been said upthread wrt the history of these matters in the USA is correct, and one of the things that certainly has changed here, relative to pre-1990s, say, would be the vast increase in right-wing propaganda and social media self-propagandizing, both of which have greatly increased the paranoia felt in certain subsections of this country, even as the actual number of households possessing a firearm has noticeably decreased.

[mahagonny]

A quick look at this page https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime/timeline-of-worldwide-school-and-mass-shootings

suggests that school shootings worldwide are overwhelmingly done by boys or young men. So, though it may be worse in the USA, the conclusion that the two genders are just plain different seems unavoidable.

Random thoughts and questions:

1) There are a lot of guns in Canada, right, but the school shootings (and likely also the active shooter drills?) do not really occur there?  Why do we think that this is so?

2) More or less everything that has been said upthread wrt the history of these matters in the USA is correct, and one of the things that certainly has changed here, relative to pre-1990s, say, would be the vast increase in right-wing propaganda and social media self-propagandizing, both of which have greatly increased the paranoia felt in certain subsections of this country, even as the actual number of households possessing a firearm has noticeably decreased.

How about the more recent trend that fewer males want to attend college? Doesn't that suggest the possibility that some young men feel excluded or isolated?

I don't know if the "off chance" part of the comment was serious or just for effect, but the implication seems to be that the "woke" crowd is claiming that cis gender people are so rare that you are highly unlikely to be correct if you identify someone as such. Is that really a common claim?

As for the future if choosing your gender is as easy as checking a box who will want to be male if they think maleness is associated with non admirable qualities.
Also, as for the future, t's a political win for today's liberal social justice warrior to help a young person realize they need to change their gender identity. And these folks are everywhere in our education system.

I don't see how it follows that anyone who argues that gender is not strictly binary must disregard every research study ever that made any comparisons between boys and girls or else they are a hypocrite.

Not that they're a hypocrite but that they are referring to studies they have already repudiated, since some of the male shooters in the study from year 2000 were really meant to be female, but society pressured them into believing they were male.

[marshwiggle]

There really weren't [a significant number of] school shootings until the mid to late 90's, or if there were, they were very isolated in time and generally not mass shootings and not in suburbs. However, there was workplace violence, and I recall a mass shooting/hostage even in the NYC suburbs in the mid to late 1970's.  A few, all over, in the 1980's. but, yes, we're at the point where I honestly can't remember some of the events people refer to because there are so many.

Does it sound very liberal of me to wonder what makes parents think that a kid who feels socially isolated will be helped by having a gun? That seems a common theme in many of these cases; the idea that shooting will somehow calm the kid down. It's as if the proposed "cure" to a kid having impulse control issues would be getting them a sports car or a big motorcycle.

My father taught me to shoot a rifle when I was 10 or 11 years old, and then a pistol a year or so later.  (He did not teach my sister.)  Some of my fondest memories of the man come from the old gravel quarry where we used to shoot bottles and cans. I got to be pretty good too.  I have never even shot near a living thing and have no plans to.

I think a great many American parents have very positive ideas about guns. 

Guns also make people feel powerful, and I think the appeal of the firearm is that when you carry one you are an important person, or at least a person that other people need to pay heed to.

This is the relevant point. When you teach people who feel socially isolated that having a gun makes them feel powerful you basically set up the conditions for gun violence. You could teach the same people how to interact socially, or how to do calming exercises, which could actually help them in social situations. But teaching them to shoot is only going to make them feel better in social situations when they have a gun.

Random thoughts and questions:

1) There are a lot of guns in Canada, right, but the school shootings (and likely also the active shooter drills?) do not really occur there?  Why do we think that this is so?

There are vastly fewer guns in Canada, and most are owned by hunters. Also, you don't have the kind of open-carry nonsense that is common in the US. If a person were walking down the street in Canada, and wasn't obviously a police officer, lots of people would call the police, who would probably arrive pretty quickly.

From wikipedia:
Estimate of civilian firearms per 100 people:
Canada 34.7
.

.

USA 120.5

There are more guns than people in the USA!!!!!!!!

Enough said.


School shooters and their parents in no way constitute a "well-regulated militia" by any sane definition of the term.

[apl68]

Random thoughts and questions:

1) There are a lot of guns in Canada, right, but the school shootings (and likely also the active shooter drills?) do not really occur there?  Why do we think that this is so?

2) More or less everything that has been said upthread wrt the history of these matters in the USA is correct, and one of the things that certainly has changed here, relative to pre-1990s, say, would be the vast increase in right-wing propaganda and social media self-propagandizing, both of which have greatly increased the paranoia felt in certain subsections of this country, even as the actual number of households possessing a firearm has noticeably decreased.

We have also witnessed an enormous increase in mental illnesses of all sorts, and massive increases in drug use and exposure to pop-culture media violence through increasingly violent movies, video games, etc. etc.  The former is probably not unrelated to the latter.  Widespread mental illness combined with easy access to firearms creates a dangerous situation.

[Parasaurolophus]

The rest of the world watches the same movies and plays the same video games but doesn't have anywhere near the same proportion of school or mass shooters. So I very much doubt there's a causal link there.

[Caracal]

The rest of the world watches the same movies and plays the same video games but doesn't have anywhere near the same proportion of school or mass shooters. So I very much doubt there's a causal link there.

The US has had a much higher murder rate than countries with similar income profiles and demographics since at least the Civil War. Weirdly Canada is kind of right between the US and Europe. I've read enough to get the sense that there isn't a single easy answer for why this is true. Easy access to guns does and has certainly played a role, but the data doesn't really suggest that guns are the whole story. (That isn't an argument against gun control) It is worth pointing out that indiscriminate mass shootings make up a tiny percentage of murders and it doesn't really make sense to consider them outside the larger context of homicide and violence.

[mahagonny]

Violent movies and video games are concerning enough, particularly where video games allow you to increase skill and score, so they may be addictive. But the business of elevating criminals who make recordings that trumpet their criminal lives and impulses, to the stature of artists who contribute to our our cultural value, is an American phenomenon that has spread.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/waukesha-darrell-brooks-milwaukee-rap-scene

Widespread mental illness combined with easy access to firearms creates a dangerous situation.

SUV's too.

ETA: If y'all are linking Guardian articles, I'm going to go ahead and use FOX here and there. CNN certainly isn't much interested in this.

[aside]

I'm surprised that the rest of you are surprised- we are usually the LAST place to get any sort of safety training. But we are also in Florida, and Parkland really rattled many of our U-PD, based on the talk they give us before the drill occurs.

In our online training video, our chief security officer says that given our size and situation, it's not a matter of if we will have an active shooter, but when.  Chilling.

[marshwiggle]

The rest of the world watches the same movies and plays the same video games but doesn't have anywhere near the same proportion of school or mass shooters. So I very much doubt there's a causal link there.

The US has had a much higher murder rate than countries with similar income profiles and demographics since at least the Civil War. Weirdly Canada is kind of right between the US and Europe. I've read enough to get the sense that there isn't a single easy answer for why this is true. Easy access to guns does and has certainly played a role, but the data doesn't really suggest that guns are the whole story. (That isn't an argument against gun control)

One thing to note is the massive chasm between responsible gun owners and the wackjobs. So the people who argue that responsible gun owners aren't really the problem have a point. However, the easy access to guns for the wackjobs, (often without background checks, etc.) makes for lots of carnage. (This includes all of the *accidental shootings where children, even toddlers, have wound up shooting other people because of criminal negligence, which seems to be rarely prosecuted as such.)

*Arguably, these shouldn't be called "accidental" when there is so much disregard for safety and basic common sense. See all of the discussion about the shooting on the set of "Rust", where all kinds of people in the industry point out how this should never have been remotely possible if the accepted safety protocols had been followed.)

[pgher]

The rest of the world watches the same movies and plays the same video games but doesn't have anywhere near the same proportion of school or mass shooters. So I very much doubt there's a causal link there.

The US has had a much higher murder rate than countries with similar income profiles and demographics since at least the Civil War. Weirdly Canada is kind of right between the US and Europe. I've read enough to get the sense that there isn't a single easy answer for why this is true. Easy access to guns does and has certainly played a role, but the data doesn't really suggest that guns are the whole story. (That isn't an argument against gun control)

One thing to note is the massive chasm between responsible gun owners and the wackjobs. So the people who argue that responsible gun owners aren't really the problem have a point. However, the easy access to guns for the wackjobs, (often without background checks, etc.) makes for lots of carnage. (This includes all of the *accidental shootings where children, even toddlers, have wound up shooting other people because of criminal negligence, which seems to be rarely prosecuted as such.)

*Arguably, these shouldn't be called "accidental" when there is so much disregard for safety and basic common sense. See all of the discussion about the shooting on the set of "Rust", where all kinds of people in the industry point out how this should never have been remotely possible if the accepted safety protocols had been followed.)

Right. Given the huge quantity of guns, and the huge number of people who own them, it is unsurprising that a few are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, simply from the law of large numbers.

I'm not surprised that there are more guns than people in the US. I doubt that there are many people who own one gun. Either none, or a bunch. A friend of mine once said that there are two things that can never be full enough: jewelry boxes and gun safes. (I think I own 12 guns, and I'm certainly on the low end among my hunting friends.)

[Puget]

The rest of the world watches the same movies and plays the same video games but doesn't have anywhere near the same proportion of school or mass shooters. So I very much doubt there's a causal link there.

The US has had a much higher murder rate than countries with similar income profiles and demographics since at least the Civil War. Weirdly Canada is kind of right between the US and Europe. I've read enough to get the sense that there isn't a single easy answer for why this is true. Easy access to guns does and has certainly played a role, but the data doesn't really suggest that guns are the whole story. (That isn't an argument against gun control)

One thing to note is the massive chasm between responsible gun owners and the wackjobs. So the people who argue that responsible gun owners aren't really the problem have a point. However, the easy access to guns for the wackjobs, (often without background checks, etc.) makes for lots of carnage. (This includes all of the *accidental shootings where children, even toddlers, have wound up shooting other people because of criminal negligence, which seems to be rarely prosecuted as such.)

*Arguably, these shouldn't be called "accidental" when there is so much disregard for safety and basic common sense. See all of the discussion about the shooting on the set of "Rust", where all kinds of people in the industry point out how this should never have been remotely possible if the accepted safety protocols had been followed.)

By far the most likely person to get shot with a gun is that gun's owner, either by suicide or accident.

[Caracal]

I'm surprised that the rest of you are surprised- we are usually the LAST place to get any sort of safety training. But we are also in Florida, and Parkland really rattled many of our U-PD, based on the talk they give us before the drill occurs.

In our online training video, our chief security officer says that given our size and situation, it's not a matter of if we will have an active shooter, but when.  Chilling.

A number of years ago, there was a shooting in a classroom at the school where I was teaching. The shooter was a student I had taught the previous semester.

I still think this kind of statement isn't helpful and we need to be careful to keep the actual risk in perspective. I can't really assess the veracity of the statement because the term active shooter is is pretty vague. However, the actual risk of someone with a gun coming into my classroom is very, very low and it is important that I not start acting like its higher than it is. I can't teach effectively if I overestimate the risks and spend lots of time worrying about how to protect myself from a remote personal threat.

[smallcleanrat]

Does anyone know the stats on the effectiveness of school drills in general (vs. merely distributing info on recommended action) reducing injury or fatality?

I'm thinking there must be a good body of data related to drills for fire or natural disasters, even if mass shootings (and drills for active shooter situations) are relatively rare or recent.

I don't know if there's an "official" definition of active shooter, but I'm guessing there's some threshold level of suspicion that gets crossed regarding 1) someone on campus has a gun and 2) has recently shot people or has threatened to shoot people.

With the situation I experienced, all that was known was that two people had been shot. Who or where the shooter or shooters were was as yet unknown. So the instructions were to hunker down and stay out of the way so the police could search and assess the situation.

Based on the flurry of emails that came out over the next several days, many people failed to follow these instructions. I'm not sure if a drill would have changed this or not.

[aside]

I'm surprised that the rest of you are surprised- we are usually the LAST place to get any sort of safety training. But we are also in Florida, and Parkland really rattled many of our U-PD, based on the talk they give us before the drill occurs.

In our online training video, our chief security officer says that given our size and situation, it's not a matter of if we will have an active shooter, but when.  Chilling.

A number of years ago, there was a shooting in a classroom at the school where I was teaching. The shooter was a student I had taught the previous semester.

I still think this kind of statement isn't helpful and we need to be careful to keep the actual risk in perspective. I can't really assess the veracity of the statement because the term active shooter is is pretty vague. However, the actual risk of someone with a gun coming into my classroom is very, very low and it is important that I not start acting like its higher than it is. I can't teach effectively if I overestimate the risks and spend lots of time worrying about how to protect myself from a remote personal threat.

I agree that the risk is low, certainly lower than the risks involved in my daily commute.  In our security officer's defense, he meant our university would have an active shooter, not a given classroom. Given the size of our place, the odds are quite small that an active shooter would show up in my classroom.  I still find it chilling that a campus that has always seemed a safe haven could have an active shooter shatter that illusion and kill and maim here, and that the experts predict it will happen.  I don't carry that thought into the classroom with me on a daily basis, but I am glad that someone is thinking about the probability of such an event and has made plans to address it when it arises.

[apl68]

The rest of the world watches the same movies and plays the same video games but doesn't have anywhere near the same proportion of school or mass shooters. So I very much doubt there's a causal link there.

The US has had a much higher murder rate than countries with similar income profiles and demographics since at least the Civil War. Weirdly Canada is kind of right between the US and Europe. I've read enough to get the sense that there isn't a single easy answer for why this is true. Easy access to guns does and has certainly played a role, but the data doesn't really suggest that guns are the whole story. (That isn't an argument against gun control)

One thing to note is the massive chasm between responsible gun owners and the wackjobs. So the people who argue that responsible gun owners aren't really the problem have a point. However, the easy access to guns for the wackjobs, (often without background checks, etc.) makes for lots of carnage. (This includes all of the *accidental shootings where children, even toddlers, have wound up shooting other people because of criminal negligence, which seems to be rarely prosecuted as such.)

We seem to fall between two stools in terms of firearms regulations.  The U.S. is not like borderline anarchic places like Pakistan--we do have firearms regulations, more extensive in some ways than they were in decades when there was significantly less gun crime than there is now.  The regulations are extensive enough to vex law-abiding gun owners (of which I personally know many, though I'm not one--with my eyesight you don't want me handling a gun!), while still containing abundant loopholes for criminals and others who shouldn't have access.  I don't have all the answers about how to regulate firearms, but there's a long gap between where we are now and the prohibitions or near-prohibitions on firearms that so many fear and a few advocate.  We could do better.