# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Strict firearm laws reduce gun deaths: here's the evidence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New Zealand will reform laws after the Christchurch massacre but how has gun control worked in other countries?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans and Australians. We share a love of sport, burgers and big things. Although we occasionally argue about how words are spelt and which side of the road to drive on. But one big difference between us that gets brought up a lot is how we deal with guns.

In Australia to every 100 people there are about 13.7 guns. In America to every 100 people there are about 120 guns and when it comes to mass shootings in Australia compared to the US, well, here are the numbers just for this year so far. Pretty sad stuff. So why is there such a big difference between us and them and these? Well back in the 1970s Australia was generally pretty relaxed about guns.

MAN WITH GUN: Do you notice anything unusual, different about me?

MAN ON STREET: You're looking very nice today, you got a haircut?

But that changed in 1996 when Australia witnessed the worst mass shooting in our country's history at Port Arthur in Tasmania. Less than two weeks later the PM at the time, John Howard, rallied the states and territories together and brought in new gun laws. Some types of weapons, like automatic and semi-automatic weapons, were banned and people who owned them were told to hand them in for money. And every person applying for a gun license had to have a good reason for owning one and go through thorough background checks.

Right now, New Zealand is bringing in similar changes. The government is buying back weapons there which are now illegal.

NEW ZEALAND RESIDENT: The law changed, and I can understand you know, it makes everyone feel safer.

The laws in New Zealand have caused some debate but nothing compared to the gun debate in the states. Every time there's a gun-related tragedy over there Australia's gun laws are brought up. But copying our laws wouldn't be simple. One reason is America's Constitution. It actually guarantees every American the right to bear arms and many don't want to give that right up.

And guns are big business. They're sold at gun fairs and even everyday chain stores. In some cases, with little or no background checks. There's also the National Rifle Association, or NRA. It's one of the most powerful groups in America and it donates money to politicians who it hopes will stop anti-gun laws. Many say a gun buy-back wouldn't work in the US because there are so many guns. In fact, nearly half the world's guns are found right here. Buying them back would be really expensive and difficult. Plus, there's no proof it would actually reduce gun violence.

Some say guns aren't the problem and that the government should focus on other things like mental health and other social issues. Last week President Donald Trump said he supported tougher background checks for gun owners but there's a long way to go before any changes are made. And it's clear that as long as the tragedies continue so will the gun debate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans and Australians. We share a love of sport, burgers and big things. Although we occasionally argue about how words are spelt and which side of the road to drive on. But one big difference between us that gets brought up a lot is how we deal with guns.

# data[].attributes.body
Amnesty Article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Overview

Gun violence is a daily scourge that threatens our most fundamental right: the right to life. More than 600 people die every day as a result of firearms violence, which is driven in part by easy access to firearms - whether legal or illegal.

Anyone can be affected by gun violence, but it often disproportionately impacts people of colour, men and boys in deprived communities, and other marginalized groups. Domestic violence involving firearms also puts women at heightened risk of death or life-changing injuries.

Sometimes, the mere presence of firearms can make people feel threatened and fearful for their lives. They may be too afraid to attend schools or health facilities. Community-wide gun violence may prevent services from fully functioning, which can harm access to education or healthcare.

The vast majority of gun violence occurs outside of armed conflict settings. A significant proportion - in some states more than half - of firearm deaths are caused by suicide and accidents.

Our human rights are not protected if our leaders fail to tackle and end the epidemic of gun violence and gun deaths.

Previous Next

What is gun violence?

Gun violence is violence committed with firearms, such as handguns, shotguns, or semi-automatic rifles. More than 600 people are estimated to die every day from gun violence with two-thirds of gun-related deaths, including suicides, occurring in just six countries (in descending order): Brazil, the USA, Venezuela, Mexico, India and Colombia.

Up to 71% of all homicides globally involve gun violence. The majority of victims and perpetrators are young men, but women are at particular risk of violence from an intimate partner possessing a firearm. Sexual violence can also be perpetrated at gunpoint.

Firearms cause devastating injuries that leave a lasting impact on mental and physical health. Some gunshot victims need intensive, lifelong care. Others may lose their ability to work. Many have little or no access to programmes that offer adequate long-term care and rehabilitation.

How many guns are there?

More than 1 billion firearms are in circulation globally. The vast majority - 85%- are in the hand of private individuals, 13% are in military arsenals and 2% are owned by law enforcement agencies.

Gun violence committed by private individuals is typically concentrated in low-income urban neighbourhoods with high levels of crime, including drug trafficking. Many of these areas are blighted by inadequate policing or policing which does not comply with international standards on human rights and law enforcement, and a lack of access to public services.

Therefore, easy access to and proliferation of firearms, combined with socio-economic factors, can have a harmful impact on the community's full range of human rights.

Gun violence and the right to health
Gun violence can rob people of their lives, health and right to healthcare.
People living in communities plagued by firearm violence may find it difficult or even dangerous to access health care facilities. This is especially true in areas where neighbourhoods are partitioned by armed criminal gangs or subject to curfews due to insecurity.

Gun violence can also deter local authorities and NGOs from setting up community health services, and contributes to poor staff retention. Survivors of domestic violence often do not have the essential psychological support or safe accommodation they need in neighbourhoods wracked by firearm violence.

The psychological toll from rampant gun violence is often heavy, particularly for victims, their family members and those who have witnessed shootings. Survivors may be left with debilitating and life-changing injuries which require long-term medical and social care.

Gun violence and the right to education

Mass shootings and other firearm violence can disrupt children's education and make students' journeys to and from school dangerous.

Endemic gun violence damages the learning environment by disrupting school attendance and rates of retention, and makes it harder to recruit and retain teaching staff.

This can, in turn, lead to poorer outcomes for students in terms of employment and income. It can also perpetuate cycles of deprivation, crime and violence.

Gun violence exacerbates the impact of systemic discrimination.
In 2020, 60.9% of the 19,995 people killed by gun homicide in the US were African Americans, despite African Americans making up just 13% of the US population.

Black men and boys aged 15-34 are more than 10 times more likely to die from firearm homicide than white men and boys of the same age group.

Failure to address systemic discrimination; failure to keep firearms out of the hands of those most likely to misuse them; and a failure to invest in gun violence prevention programmes all contribute to this crisis.
Women facing domestic violence and children are also disproportionately affected by gun violence.
In 2020, the ratio of women in the Caribbean killed in gun violence was more than three times the global average. In the USA, guns are now the leading cause of death for children. Furthermore, between 2% and 7% of all injuries treated at US paediatric trauma centres are gun-related.

Gun Violence Figures Worldwide

How can governments stop gun violence?

Effectively implemented gun regulation and evidence-based violence prevention projects can stop the carnage.

As a first step, states should recognize firearm violence as a threat to people's human rights, in particular their rights to life, to physical integrity and security of person, and to health.

Gun regulation and gun licences

States can set up some basic systems to regulate how private individuals can own and use firearms and ammunition to prevent them from using firearms to abuse human rights.

International standards recommend prohibiting any possession of firearms without a licence; that states should register all firearms; and that unlicensed possession should be treated as a criminal offence.

A firearms licence should be subject to certain criteria. For example, the applicant should undergo a comprehensive background check to identify any risks, such as:

a criminal record - especially for violent behaviour in the home or community; history of gender-based, sexual or domestic violence;

history of problematic use of drugs/alcohol, emotional issues, mental health conditions and

any other circumstances which heighten the risks of the harm to self or others using firearms.

Gun licences should be time-limited and training on how to use the weapon should be mandatory. The number and type of weapons that an individual can possess should also be strictly limited in line with the principles of necessity and credible justification.

Some firearms and ammunition represent an unacceptable level of risk to public safety and should be banned for personal use. These should include, at a minimum, fully automatic firearms, semi-automatic assault rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and semi-automatic submachine guns.

Does gun reform work?

Yes, gun reform works. Almost all countries regulate gun acquisition, possession and use in some form. Most do this by licensing users and registering firearms.

Gun reform works in parts of the world where there are strict controls on access to firearms and well-enforced firearms regulations. This is the case for much of Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and parts of Asia. For example, in Japan, South Korea and Singapore, the rate of firearm violence is extremely low.

What does Amnesty do about gun violence?

Amnesty International is campaigning to strengthen regulations on firearm sale, transfer, use and possession. We support the creation of evidence-based violence reduction programmes in communities with persistently high levels of firearms violence.

You can stand up and remind our leaders of their obligation to keep us safe. You can play a crucial role in campaigning and protesting against gun violence and making it clear to governments that they must tackle this through strict controls on guns and effective interventions in communities suffering high levels of gun violence.
You have the power to tell governments that by using gun laws, we can all live safely and without fear - which is our right.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We have the right to be safe from gun violence.

# data[].attributes.body
Australia's gun laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the wake of the Christchurch terror attacks, Australia's gun control laws have once again come under the global spotlight.

The Australian example is being cited as a success story as New Zealand looks to toughen legislation around guns.

So what do our laws say?

The Port Arthur massacre

Most gun laws remain the responsibility of states and territories and up until 1996, varied widely across the country.

In 1990, there were about 3.5 million firearms in Australia or approximately one firearm for every four Australians, according to the National Committee on Violence.

In some jurisdictions during that time, minors were able to obtain a firearms licence, not all firearms needed to be registered and, controversially, automatic and semi-automatic weapons could be legally owned.

But laws were radically reshaped after of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, when Martin Bryant killed 35 and wounded 23 with two military rifles.

In the fallout of Port Arthur, then-Prime Minister John Howard pushed for a sweeping new national framework called the National Firearms Agreement.

It was hammered out over the strong opposition of some states and many gun owners.

In an image that came to define the debate, Mr Howard addressed a gun control rally in Sale wearing a bulletproof vest. It was reportedly the first time an Australian prime minister wore a bullet proof vest on home soil.

The laws

The National Firearms Agreement now frame gun ownership in Australia.

The agreement restricted the private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic firearms, self-loading and pump action shotguns, and certain handguns.

Applicants for a gun owner's licence need a genuine reason to own a firearm, for example gun club membership, hunting, target shooting, firearm collection, pest control, and narrow occupational uses.

Gun owners can only have the number of guns specified on their licence and there are limits on the ammunition they can buy in a given period.

And an applicant for a firearm licence in Australia must pass a background check which considers criminal, mental health, physical, addiction, domestic violence, residential and other records.

Gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify every one to five years depending on the licence category.

These laws were initially accompanied by a large-scale gun buyback program.

New Zealand comparison

As a result of the measures, there is now about one weapon for every eight people in Australia and there has been a reduction of more than 50 per cent in the number of gunshot victims since 1996.

While in New Zealand, there are roughly one firearm to every four people. There is no ban on semi-automatic weapons and with only semi-automatics needing to be registered, the majority of firearms are left unaccounted for by authorities.

Firearm analysis website GunPolicy.org, run by the University of Sydney expert Philip Alpers, says the difference between the two countries could not be starker.

"Australia has the tightest gun control policies in the Pacific and some of the most comprehensive regulations internationally," it says.

"New Zealand is at the opposite end of the spectrum with some of the most permissive gun policies in the Pacific region. Among developed nations, it stands alone with the United States as the only two countries without universal gun registration."

Political risks

Former deputy prime minister and Nationals leader Tim Fischer, who was in office in 1996, recently told AAP about the turbulent period around passing gun control measures.

He recalled an effigy of himself being set alight outside a public hall in Queensland as he and the cabinet took their policy around the country.

"[But] if you count 10 or more victims as a gun massacre, we had several before 1996, we've had zero since," he said.

"The US has several every month of every year of the 21st century."

He warned that Australians shouldn't become complacent, and must guard against any attempts to wind back the gun control laws.

It's an issue New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will now have to grapple with after promising changes following the Christchurch massacre.
Additional reporting: Joy Joshi, AAP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the wake of the Christchurch terror attacks, Australia's gun control laws have once again come under the global spotlight. The Australian example is being cited as a success story as New Zealand looks to toughen legislation around guns. So what do our laws say?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pro-Gun Vs. Anti-Gun: Is There Middle Ground? | Middle Ground

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Obama has indicated a move towards strengthening federal gun control measures, but the reality is that the majority of gun legislation in the US is enacted at the state level. That has brought broad variations across the country, with states taking different approaches to issues ranging from sales, permits, licensing, self-defence and carry laws

* Gun laws in the US: seven things you need to know about the data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun laws in the US, state by state - interactive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Obama has indicated a move towards strengthening federal gun control measures, but the reality is that the majority of gun legislation in the US is enacted at the state level.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
2018 school shootings: a list of incidents that resulted in casualties - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
There has been, on average, 1 school shooting every week this year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We're 21 weeks into 2018, and there have been 23 school shootings where someone was hurt or killed. That averages out to more than 1 shooting a week.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This NSSF report details the significant economic impact the firearm and ammunition industry has on our economy, both nationally and at the state level. The economic growth America's firearm and ammunition industry has experienced in recent years has been nothing short of remarkable and has been driven by an unprecedented number of Americans choosing to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. This includes an estimated 4.2 million new gun owners in 2022.

The report also notes the significant impact the firearm and ammunition industry has on wildlife conservation funding in America through its growing Pittman-Robertson excise tax contributions to the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund which exceeded $1.15 billion in 2022.
View Report
Regardless of economic conditions across the country, our industry has grown and created over 390,000 new, well-paying jobs since the middle of the Great Recession in 2008. Our industry is proud to be one of the bright spots in our economy.

Take a look for yourself and see the impact we have nationally and on your home state.

The Firearm Industry Creates Jobs in America

United States companies that manufacture, distribute, and sell sporting firearms, ammunition, and supplies are an important part of the country's economy. Manufacturers of firearms, ammunition, and supplies, along with the companies that sell and distribute these products, provide well-paying jobs in America and pay significant amounts in tax to the state and Federal governments.

Economic Impact of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Industry in the United States

Direct

Supplier

Induced

Total

Jobs (FTE)

172,697

97,823

123,176
393,696

Wages

$9,372,350,400

$8,188,510,300

$8,026,286,800
$25,587,147,500

Economic Impact

$32,110,233,100

$24,468,955,600

$24,151,650,400
$80,730,839,100

The Firearm & Ammunition Industry is an Important Part of America's Economy

Companies in the United States that manufacture, distribute, and sell firearms, ammunition, and hunting equipment employ as many as 172,697 people in the country and generate an additional 220,999 jobs in supplier and ancillary industries. These include jobs in supplying goods and services to manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, and those that depend on sales to workers in the firearm and ammunition industry. ¹

These are good jobs paying an average of $65,000 in wages and benefits. And today, every job is important. The United States currently has an unemployment rate of 3.40 percent. This means that there are already 6,026,000 people trying to find jobs in the nation and collecting unemployment benefits. ²

The Economic Benefit of the Industry Spreads Throughout the Country

Not only does the manufacture and sale of firearms and hunting supplies create good jobs in the United States, but the industry also contributes to the economy as a whole. In fact, in 2022 the firearm and ammunition industry was responsible for as much as $80.73 billion in total economic activity in the country.

The broader economic impact flows throughout the economy, generating business for firms seemingly unrelated to firearms. Real people, with real jobs, working in industries as varied as banking, retail, accounting, metal working, even in printing, all depend on the firearm and ammunition industry for their livelihood.

The Country Also Benefits From the Taxes Paid By The Industry

Not only does the industry create jobs, it also generates sizeable tax revenues. In the United States, the industry and its employees pay over $7.48 billion in taxes including property, income, and sales based levies. ³

Taxes Generated in the United States

Tax Impact

Business Taxes

Excise Taxes

Federal Taxes

$5,530,765,000

$1,150,847,728

State Taxes

$1,946,804,700

Total Taxes
$7,477,569,700
$1,150,847,728

View Report

1 John Dunham & Associates, Florida, December 2022. Direct impacts include those jobs in firearms and ammunition manufacturers, as well as companies that manufacture products such as ammunition holders and magazines, cases, decoys, game calls, holsters, hunting equipment, scopes, clay pigeons and targets. Direct impacts also include those resulting from the wholesale distribution and retailing of these products.
2 The Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available online at: www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm . Data for December 2022
3 This is in addition to over $1.15 billion in federal excise taxes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Firearm and Ammunition Industry Economic Impact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The industry continues to have a positive economic impact, creating jobs and tax revenue, and is proud to be one of the bright spots in this economy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
February 22
Since money talks, maybe we should spend more time discussing how much gun violence is costing us as a society.

Following the shooting in Las Vegas that left 59 dead and hundreds wounded, CBS Moneywatch's Aimee Picchi wrote that, "gun violence in the U.S. also has an enormous financial cost, rippling through the economy in the form of lost wages, medical bills, higher taxes for law enforcement and lower property values, among other factors. Some estimates put the total annual tab of shootings at well over $100 billion, while others put it even higher."

Read more: Can the U.S. afford the massive cost of gun violence?

"The economic devastation caused by gun violence tends to get overlooked because Americans may not think it impacts them, especially if they live in a safe neighborhood or away from cities beset with crime," Picchi wrote. "Yet taxpayers are picking up the bill by paying for the medical care of victims on Medicaid and by forking out more in taxes to fund law enforcement, the criminal justice system, and jails and prisons."

Mike McLively, senior staff attorney at Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence told Picchi, "The usual discussion is: There's a mass shooting, we talk about political inaction, and then everyone turns to the next thing that's happening or next disaster. The cost of gun violence goes undiscussed, and it's super important because it's silently affecting everyone."

"Researchers conservatively estimate that gun violence costs the American economy at least $229 billion every year, including $8.6 billion in direct expenses such as for emergency and medical care," according to the law center.

Read more: A breakdown of the $229 billion gun violence tab that American taxpayers are paying every year

The center is taking a look at the state-by-state cost of gun violence.

For example, in a report last year on the cost to the state of Ohio, the center said when you add up the expenses that can be directly measured, including health-care costs, law enforcement and criminal justice expenses, employer costs, and lost income, the initial price tag of gun violence is $2.7 billion a year.

But when you include reduced quality of life from pain and suffering, the estimate for the economic cost of gun violence in Ohio rises to a $7.3 billion per year, the center estimates.

In a 2015 article, Mother Jones profiled a number of gun violence victims focusing on the financial fallout from being shot.

Read more: The True Cost of Gun Violence in America

Here are two victim stories.

Jennifer Longdon: $40,000 for wheelchair modifications to her home after a gunshot in a road rage incident left her paralyzed. Another $35,000 for a custom lift-equipped van.

Most of her medical bills were covered through a combination of Medicaid and Medicare. But still she had to file for bankruptcy.

"I don't think people understand the way nickels and dimes add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars-millions of dollars-over the lifetime of an injury," Longdon said.

Antonius Wiriadjaja: $169,000 for medical care, physical therapy and counseling. He had been walking in his Brooklyn neighborhood when a man stalking an ex-partner started shooting at her. A stray bullet pierced his chest and lodged in his stomach.

Most of that $169,000 was covered by his health insurance. But he still had $20,000 in deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses that wiped out his savings.

In the Mother Jones article Wiriadjaja said, "I know I'm lucky, because I had savings, health insurance and an incredible support network. Many other gunshot survivors are not. I count my blessings every day."

Read: This Is What It's Really Like to Survive a Gunshot: Eight victims share their stories.

Here's some research from the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center on the economic impacts of gun violence.

- The Effect of Gun Violence on Local Economies

- Gun Violence Affects the Economic Health of Communities

Researchers from Johns Hopkins analyzed data from a nationally representative sample of 704,916 patients in the United States who arrived at an emergency room alive for treatment of a firearm injury from 2006 to 2014.

Read more: The annual cost of gun violence in America-$2.8 billion in emergency room, inpatient charges

Faiz Gani, a research fellow at the Johns Hopkins Surgery Center for Outcomes Research, said, "Until people are aware of the problem's full extent, we can't have the best informed discussions to guide policy."
Trump suggests arming teachers as a solution to increase school safety Shooting survivors push for action in Trump meeting Trump vows tougher background checks, mental health screens for gun buyers in meeting with students
Color of Money question of the week
Can we afford the cost of gun violence? Send your comments to colorofmoney@washpost.com and include your name, city and state. In the subject line put "Gun Violence." Please keep your comments civil.

Live chat today
What's on your mind about your money? Please join me today at noon (ET). I'll be available to answer your personal finance questions.

Here's the link to join the conversation.
Does your debt make you undateable?
In last week's newsletter I wrote about new research from personal finance site finder.com that found people do put a price on how much debt is acceptable in a potential partner. So I asked: How much debt would make a person undateable to you?

Lexi from Walla Walla, Washington wrote, "I am 23 and working on my MBA. A person with any debt is undateable to me. I have worked very hard to make it through my undergraduate and MBA studies without a single student loan and I make double payments on my car loan each month. I grew up in a rocky financial household. My parents had separate finances and my father was horrible with money. Blame it on daddy issues, but debt is not attractive to me!"

"I am one of the people with debt," wrote Mary from Oakland. "I previously had none, had a savings, had investments. Then I lost my job. In order to survive through a combination of temp work, unemployment, etc. I had to use my credit cards. My COBRA was over $1,000 a month, I had to have surgery twice, needed new glasses. Someone in my family died and I not only had to travel, which I did as cheaply as possible, but I am the one who had to pay for the cremation of my family member since there was no one else to do it. I'm finally employed again but my debt is about $20,000 and my savings is gone. So before people who have had the good fortune to have no job loss, family death, health problems get snotty about who is 'undateable,' maybe they should consider that not everyone who has debt is some nitwit. There is a whiff of the judgmental Puritan in all this."

Scott Fossum of Houston wrote, "Any amount of debt is an acceptable amount for me to date someone. Debt represents past behavior, I'm more interested in current behavior. Is the debt going down or up, is there a plan to reduce debt? The potential of going past dating includes the answers to those questions. Most of my friends and acquaintances have debt (lots to moderate i.e. normal people; a few with zero) and dating to me is more about fun than serious discussions about debt. It is not difficult to determine one's debt situation and philosophy by observing and listening."

"Debt accumulated is not the problem," wrote John from Winston Salem, N.C. "One's commitment to getting rid of the debt is the only factor that should matter to a dating relationship. I had $15,400 spread out over four credit cards, an $1,800 personal loan, $1,500 in medical debt, and $30,057.99 in student loans. I stupidly amassed all of that in college and after I graduated I made the commitment to never borrow money again. I did this because my now spouse (girlfriend at the time) introduced me to Dave Ramsey and his principles of living debt free and it was a blessing not only to our relationship (she had zero debt) but also to our marriage. It made going through cancer (mine as well) all the easier."

Color of Money columns this week
Knowledge isn't power. The right knowledge is power.

Stay informed about your money.

In addition to this newsletter, read and share my weekly personal finance columns.

- Inspirational tales in 'Black Fortunes' shatter myths about blacks and money

- How much should you be saving?

Newsletter comments policy
Please note it is my personal policy to identify readers who respond to questions I ask in my newsletters. I find it encourages thoughtful and civil conversation. I want my newsletters to be a safe place to express your opinion. On sensitive matters or upon request, I'm happy to include just your first name and/or last initial. But I prefer not to post anonymous comments (I do make exceptions when I'm asking questions that might reveal sensitive information or cause conflict.)

Have a question about your finances? Michelle Singletary has a weekly live chat every Thursday at noon where she discusses financial dilemmas with readers. You can also write to Michelle directly by sending an email to michelle.singletary@washpost.com. Personal responses may not be possible, and comments or questions may be used in a future column, with the writer's name, unless otherwise requested. To read more Color of Money columns, go here.

Follow Michelle Singletary on Twitter @SingletaryM and Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Perspective | The enormous economic cost of gun violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
February 22 Since money talks, maybe we should spend more time discussing how much gun violence is costing us as a society. Following the shooting in Las Vegas that left 59 dead and hundreds wounded, CBS Moneywatch's Aimee Picchi wrote that, "gun violence in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The number of pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns and miscellaneous firearms manufactured in the U.S. in 2013, the latest full year available. That's 4,441,726 pistols, 725,282 revolvers, 3,979,570 rifles, 1,203,072 shotguns, and 495,142 miscellaneous firearms. ( ATF)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The number of pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns and miscellaneous firearms manufactured in the U.S. in 2013, the latest full year available. That's 4,441,726 pistols, 725,282 revolvers, 3,979,570 rifles, 1,203,072 shotguns, and 495,142 miscellaneous firearms. ( ATF)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chaos at Columbine: Revisiting the Tragedy 17 Years Later - Pt. 2 - Crime Watch Daily

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's hard to believe it's been 17 years since two students stormed their Colorado high school and opened fire. April 20, 1999 was a day that changed America. Check your local listings at CrimeWatchDaily.com.

# data[].attributes.headline
How many children and young people are affected by school shootings

# data[].attributes.subject
How many children and young people are affected by school shootings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thirteen at Columbine. Twenty-six at Sandy Hook. Seventeen at Marjory Stoneman Douglas.

Over the past two decades, a handful of massacres that have come to define school shootings in this country are almost always remembered for the students and educators slain. Death tollsare repeated so often that the numbers and places become permanently linked.

What those figures fail to capture, though, is the collateral damage of this uniquely American crisis. Beginning with Columbine in 1999, more than 187,000 students attending at least 193 primary or secondary schools have experienced a shooting on campus during school hours, according to a year-long Washington Post analysis. This means that the number of children who have been shaken by gunfire in the places they go to learn exceeds the population of Eugene, Ore., or Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Many are never the same.

School shootings remain extremely rare, representing a tiny fraction of the gun violence epidemic that, on average, leaves a child bleeding or dead every hour in the United States. While few of those incidents happen on campuses, the ones that do have spread fear across the country, changing the culture of education and how kids grow up.

Every day, threats send classrooms into lockdowns that can frighten students, even when they turn out to be false alarms. Thousands of schools conduct active-shooter drills in which kids as young as 4 hide in darkened closets and bathrooms from imaginary murderers.

"It's no longer the default that going to school is going to make you feel safe," said Bruce D. Perry, a psychiatrist and one of the country's leading experts on childhood trauma. "Even kids who come from middle-class and upper-middle-class communities literally don't feel safe in schools."

Samantha Haviland understands the waves of fear created by the attacks as well as anyone.

At 16, she survived the carnage at Columbine High, a seminal moment in the evolution of modern school shootings. Now 35, she is the director of counseling for Denver's public school system and has spent almost her entire professional life treating traumatized kids. Yet, she's never fully escaped the effects of what happened to her on that morning in Littleton, Colo. The nightmares, always of being chased, lingered for years. Even now, the images of children walking out of schools with their hands up is too much for her to bear.

On Saturday, some of Haviland's students, born in the years after Columbine, participated in the Denver "March For Our Lives" to protest school gun violence, one of many demonstrations held across the United States. In the nation's capital, students from Parkland, Fla. - still grieving the friends and classmates they lost last month - led an impassioned rally attended by a massive crowd that demanded gun reform.

"They were born and raised in a society where mass shootings are a thing," she said, recalling how much her community and schoolmates blamed themselves for the attack by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. " These students are saying, 'No, no - these things are happening because you all can't figure it out.' They're angry, and I think that anger is appropriate. And I hope they don't let us get away with it."

Mass shootings at predominantly white schools draw the most attention from journalists and lawmakers, but The Post has found that children of color are far more likely to experience campus gun violence - nearly twice as much for Hispanic students and three times as much for black students.

In analyzing school shootings, The Post defined them far more narrowly than others who have compiled data over the past few years. Everytown for Gun Safety's tally, for example, contains episodes of gunfire even on late nights and weekends, when no students or staff were present. The Gun Violence Archive disregards those events but does include others that occur at extracurricular activities, such as football games and dances. (Read more about our methodology.)

The Post counted only incidents that happened immediately before, during or just after classes to pinpoint the number of students who were present and affected at the time. Shootings at after-hours events, accidental discharges that caused no injuries to anyone other than the person handling the gun, and suicides that occurred privately or didn't pose a threat to other children were excluded, though many of these can be deeply disturbing. Gunfire at colleges and universities, which affect young adults rather than children, also were excluded.

In total, The Post found an average of 10 school shootings per year since Columbine, with a low of five in 2002 and a high of 15 in 2014. Less than three months into 2018, there have been 11 shootings, already making this year among the worst on record.

At least 130 kids, educators, staff and family members have been killed in assaults during school hours, and another 254 have been injured. But the analysis went much deeper than that, exploring the types of attacks, the impact on minority students, the role of armed resource officers, the weapons used and where they were obtained, and the characteristics of shooters.

Schools in at least 36 states and the District have experienced a shooting, according to The Post's count. They happen in big cities and small towns, in affluent suburbs and rural communities. The precise circumstances in each incident differed, but what all of them had in common was the profound damage they left behind.

Gangs and grudges: Targeted shootings far more common than indiscriminate slaughter

The day had just begun at the high school in Memphis when a sophomore walked up to a senior during gym class and pointed a .22-caliber pistol at him. In a room packed with 75 students on that morning in 2008, Corneilous Cheers, 17, opened fire, striking his schoolmate in the leg, the groin and the head. As his rival bled on the floor, Cheers turned to their gym teacher at Mitchell High and handed him the gun.

"It's over now," the teen said.

The term "school shooting" most often conjures a black-clad gunman roaming the hallways, firing at anyone he sees, but those attacks are considerably less common than the ones aimed at specific victims.

Cheers, for example, shot the other teen after a feud that peaked, investigators said, in an off-campus confrontation days earlier. Although determining motive is not always possible, The Post found that targeted shootings were about three times as common as those that appeared indiscriminate.

This underscores just how difficult it is for schools to stop most shooters, particularly in a country with more than 250 million guns. The majority intend to harm just one or two people, so the attacks typically end within seconds, leaving little or no time for staff to intervene.

Keeping weapons out of schools has proved just as difficult. At Mitchell High, students had passed through metal detectors one week earlier, but they weren't being used the day Cheers brought a pistol into the building. Even schools that screen students every day sometimes fail to prevent gun violence from spilling onto their campuses.

In targeted shootings, gang members or estranged husbands attack students and educators on campuses simply as a matter of convenience - the perpetrators know where their intended victims will be and when.

A year ago, in San Bernardino, Calif., a man who had long harassed his estranged wife walked into her classroom and, without a word, fired 10 shots from his revolver, killing her and also fatally wounding an 8-year-old. He then took his own life.

In 2016, just as hundreds of students were letting out for the day from Linden-McKinley STEM Academy in Columbus, Ohio, a 16-year-old in a passing car opened fire and wounded two students - one 12, the other 15 - on the front lawn.

Cases such as that one, which was gang related and didn't kill anybody, seldom prompt demands for reform. The same is true of accidental shootings that cause injuries (at least 16 since Columbine) and suicides committed in a public space or that included a threat to other students (at least four have occurred over the same period).

The emotional damage children suffer from these shootings, however, can be just as crippling as what others endure during highly publicized assaults. A study published in the journal Pediatrics in 2015 concluded that kids who witness an attack involving a gun or knife can be just as traumatized as children who have been shot or stabbed.

"In some ways, the distress caused, especially when the victim is a child or other close family member, might even be worse," said Sherry Hamby, a clinical psychologist and co-author of the study. "We don't do enough to acknowledge the collateral damage of gun violence. We are asking too many to carry this burden."

More than 700 students attended Linden-McKinley two years ago, and scores of them saw the carnage that unfolded during that drive-by.

"All I heard is these gunshots go off," Ya'mya Wilson, a junior, told a TV station at the time. "I literally started crying."

'Living in chronic war zones': Most kids shaken by school shootings aren't white

The news was both infuriating and encouraging for Duke Bradley, principal at Benjamin Banneker High, an almost all-black school south of downtown Atlanta. A girl had spotted a classmate with a gun and reported it to an administrator.

Weapons of any kind are banned at Banneker, where in 2014, before Bradley arrived, someone had opened fire in the parking lot, injuring no one but forcing classes into lockdown. Still, the fact that the girl had come forward last year, the principal said, told him that she wanted to learn in a place free from the violence plaguing her community.

After the gun was confiscated, Bradley confronted the boy, who was about 15. He asked whether he'd brought the pistol to shoot someone there.

"Of course not," the teen told him, offended that Bradley would think that.

The boy had brought it, he explained, because he needed protection on his way to and from campus.

"It was sobering," Bradley said. "We, as adults - sometimes even the ones that work in these schools - are insulated from the world that our kids come from."

In November, another teen brought a gun simply because he had found it on the way. He, too, said he had no intention to hurt anyone, but it went off in a classroom, injuring two of Bradley's students - and making Banneker one of at least four schools that have experienced two shootings since Columbine.

The Post analysis found that 62.6 percent of the students exposed to gun violence at school since 1999 were children of color, and almost all those shootings were targeted or accidental, rather than indiscriminate.

These incidents rarely make the news. In part, that's because far fewer people are injured, but it's also, experts say, because of the outside world's perception of kids who grow up in high-crime neighborhoods.

"Often, we have this notion that, 'Oh, they're used to it' - and that's BS," said Steven Berkowitz, director of the Penn Center for Youth and Family Trauma Response and Recovery. "They're not used to it."

Berkowitz has for two decades treated inner-city children who encounter gunfire in their neighborhoods as well as in their schools. The threat of violence in parts of Philadelphia, where he works now, is so relentless that some students keep their backs to the walls at all times - and often can't explain why.

Sign up for our Must Reads newsletter

Five of The Post's best stories, in your inbox every Saturday.

Thank you for subscribing

Many of those children are in states of hyper-vigilance, he said, and tend to perceive danger even where there is none, much like combat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.

"I think these mass school shootings are absolutely horrific," he said, but "it's much more insidious and potentially really life altering to have this ongoing danger. . . . It's not different than kids living in chronic war zones."

Earlier this month, in Birmingham, Ala., 150 miles west of Banneker High, another gun discharged at another school attended almost entirely by black children. Police, at least initially, suspected it was an accident.

It happened in a classroom, just as students were leaving for the day. The round pierced the heart of Courtlin Arrington, who died one month shy of her 18th birthday. She was a senior, headed for college. She wanted to become a nurse.

The same week, Javon Davies, a sixth-grader at a Birmingham middle school, came home and told his mom, Mariama, that he and his classmates had spent the day in lockdown.

"Somebody said they was going to shoot up the school," she recalled him saying.

Javon, who is 12, had heard about Courtlin's killing, just as he had heard about Parkland. He and a friend suspected that they, too, might die at their school, so each of the boys wrote a will.

"Mom," the other sixth-grader wrote in print letters, "I want to give my friend Javon every thing that I own that includes the xbox and games and controllers and all that comes with it."

In Javon's instructions, he listed his PlayStation 4, his Xbox 360 and his dirt bike.

"I love you my whole Family you mean the most to me," he wrote. "You gave me the clothes on my back, you fed me, and you were always by my side."

'It's not like on TV': Armed resource officers and kids with guns

When Ed McClanahan first saw the teenager holding a .357 Magnum revolver in the middle of North Thurston High's commons, the resource officer pointed his gun, but he couldn't fire. All around the shooter, who had already sent a round into the floor and another into the ceiling, were other students, many running in terror, some frozen in confusion.

"It's not like on TV," McClanahan said. "You can't just start blasting away with your gun. You could hit someone else, and that would be the worst thing in the world."

He shifted his position, finding an angle that placed the gunman between him and a trophy case on that morning in 2015 in Washington state. McClanahan slid his finger on the trigger, and just as he began to apply pressure, a teacher tackled the 16-year-old.

In the nation's capital, and in states across the country, lawmakers are debating how best to protect kids in schools, and much of the disagreement has centered on whether to hire more resource officers, arm teachers or do both. The answer to a key question - How effectively can someone with a gun protect a school from someone else with a gun? - is almost always missing from the discussion.

The Post analysis found that gun violence has occurred in at least 68 schools that employed a police officer or security guard. In all but a few of those incidents, the shootings ended before law enforcement of any kind interceded - often because the gunfire lasted only a few seconds. Prolonged attacks, of course, can be even more fraught, as McClanahan's experience illustrates.

Of the nearly 200 Post-identified incidents of school gunfire, only once before this week has a resource officer gunned down an active shooter. In 2001, an 18-year-old with a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun was firing at the outside of a California high school when the resource officer rounded a corner and shot him in the face.

Whether that happened again Tuesday at Great Mills High in southern Maryland - where a 17-year-old gunman was fatally wounded after being confronted by a resource officer - remains unclear; investigators have not said whose bullet ended the teen's life in an incident that also left two other students injured.

The NRA and other gun rights advocates have long argued that on-campus police deter school shooters. But do they?

The Post analysis shows that resource officers or security guards were present during four of the five worst rampages (which left the highest number of people dead or injured): Columbine and Marjory Stoneman Douglas, Marshall County High in Kentucky earlier this year and Santana High in California in 2001.

At least once, however, the threat of encountering resistance influenced an alleged school shooter's plan. In 2016, authorities said, a 14-year-old in South Carolina attacked his elementary school rather than his middle school in large part because the latter had armed security.

And, in several instances, resource officers appear to have saved lives without ever pulling a trigger.

In 2010, after a man pointed his .380 semiautomatic pistol at a principal in a Tennessee high school, Carolyn Gudger, a resource officer, drew her own weapon and shielded the administrator. The standoff continued until other officers arrived and killed the intruder, who never fired but refused to drop his gun.

Introducing weapons into schools for any reason, however, comes with real risk.

In 2004, a security guard approached a 16-year-old student she suspected of smoking marijuana behind a high school in New Orleans. After the student pushed her, she later told investigators, he appeared to reach for something under his shirt, so she shot him in the foot. The teen, however, was carrying neither drugs nor a weapon.

Two years ago, a resource officer in Michigan negligently fired his .380 Sig Sauer semiautomatic handgun, sending a round through a wall and ricocheting around a classroom - occupied by 30 students - until the bullet grazed a teacher's neck, leaving a scratch. The officer, Adam J. Brown, later tossed the bullet in the grass in an attempt to hide the evidence, and he was eventually sentenced to a month in jail.

Those opposed to arming teachers point to incidents like these as the reason.If law enforcement professionals with extensive training to handle firearms make mistakes with them, what might go wrong if educators with far less training carry the same lethal weapons?

Just last week, an armed teacher at Seaside High in California inadvertently fired his gun into the ceiling, leaving two students injured by falling debris and a third by a bullet fragment.

And more than once, suicidal teens have sought out confrontations with armed resource officers at their schools. In 2008, a 17-year-old in California attacked one with a baseball bat in what police said was an attempt to force the man to kill him, which he did. A year later, in South Carolina, a 16-year-old struggling with depression stabbed a resource officer seven times with a bayonet before being shot to death.

For McClanahan, who's now retired, a resource officer's most essential role is to intercede well before an act of gun violence occurs. He and senior administrators would regularly discuss potentially dangerous students, and at least 10 times during his decade working in schools, he dealt with kids who had made serious threats, either to classmates or online. In each case, McClanahan said, he and other officers visited the students' homes and asked to search their bedrooms.

But the teen who fired the two rounds at North Thurston had just recently enrolled. He had a troubled history, McClanahan said, but he'd never made a threat or talked about bringing a weapon to school. Resource officers can only do so much, he said, stressing that, in America 2018, the responsibility to prevent school shootings falls just as much on other students, teachers, coaches, neighbors, friends and, perhaps most of all, parents.

The teenager McClanahan nearly shot, he said, had gotten the .357 Magnum from his father's sock drawer.

Handguns are more common - and less lethal - in school shootings

"We...... have...... GUNS!" Eric Harris exulted in a journal after listing each one he and Dylan Klebold had obtained, none more important to their plan than the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine rifle, with its 250 rounds of ammunition. It was November 1998, five months before the massacre at Columbine.

"I'm still waiting for a mass shooter who eschews 9mm pistols and instead buys an AK-47. . ." Adam Lanza declared on an online message board, describing a gun much like the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle in his home. It was January 2011, 23 months before the massacre at Sandy Hook.

"Arsenal," Nikolas Cruz announced on Instagram along with an image of a bed strewn with firearms around his AR-15 rifle. It was July 2017, seven months before the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas.

A generation of school shooters aspire to kill just as many people as Harris, Klebold, Lanza and Cruz, but what sets them apart - and made them famous - are the extraordinarily deadly weapons they used. The Post found that the number of people who died in those three attacks accounted for 43 percent of the total death toll in school shootings over the past 19 years.

Handguns, though less lethal, are far more common. More than 106,000 students have been exposed to gunfire during at least 113 incidents that involved only a pistol.

And where do most shooters get their weapons?

In cases where the source of the gun could be determined, more than 85 percent, according to The Post analysis, brought them from their own homes or obtained them from friends or relatives. Although 7 in 10 of the shooters were under 18, adults in only 14 states and D.C. can be held criminally liable for negligently storing firearms where minors can reach them, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Even the laws in those states, researchers say, are often not enforced.

Denise Dowd, an emergency room doctor at Children's Mercy Hospital in Missouri, has argued for years that no youth should have unsupervised access to a gun. Dowd has researched the consequences for the American Academy of Pediatrics and seen them firsthand during a four-decade medical career in which she's treated at least 500 juvenile gunshot victims.

"You have to separate the guns from the kids - the thing that does harm from the thing that's harmed. That's a tenet of injury prevention," Dowd said. "There's this mythical idea that you can teach kids to not to want to handle a gun. Curiosity and impulsiveness are always going to trump your education of that kid."

On the morning of May 15, 2017, Gage Meche, then 7, walked into his first-grade class and hung up his blue Nike backpack, then turned around. On the floor in front of him was a gun. It had just fallen out of another boy's bag, and when a girl Gage had known since they were toddlers picked it up, the pistol fired, discharging a .380 round that blew through his stomach, tearing into his intestines and nicking a vena cava vein, which carries blood to the heart.

The boy who'd brought the gun had found it at home, investigators say. His father, Michael Dugas, had given the weapon to his older son, who was 17. The teenager kept it in his room, loaded, unlocked and inside a bag that hung on the wall.

Soon after the shooting, Dugas was charged with two misdemeanors, eventually receiving six months in prison for his negligence.

Gage, meanwhile, endured four surgeries then had to learn to walk and eat again. Now 8, his 40-pound body hurts almost all the time, said his mother, Krista LeBleu.

The girl who accidentally shot him still struggles with guilt and post-traumatic stress. At a church camp last summer, a water-pistol fight broke out, and when she saw the plastic guns, the girl began to weep.

Gage has changed, too, his mother said. He had been so excited to flip the coin before a local football game a few months ago, but when the team rushed onto the field, someone fired a cannon. The boy's knees buckled, and he collapsed to the grass, trembling as he curled into a ball. He still has nightmares, but he tells his parents they're too scary to talk about. Gage is also more aggressive than before, sometimes erupting for no reason. Afterward, he can't explain what happened.

"I don't know why I'm so bad," he says.

Who the shooters are and what they have in common

Twenty-seven days after Adam Lanza walked into a Connecticut elementary school holding a semiautomatic rifle, a pale, redheaded teenager walked into a science class nearly 3,000 miles away holding a shotgun.

Bryan Oliver, a junior, aimed the barrel at a schoolmate who he claimed had bullied him at Taft Union High in California, then pulled the trigger, blasting a hole in the boy's chest.

He had intended to shoot at least one other young man, investigators said, but his second shot missed. Their teacher, whose head was grazed, calmed the teen, eventually persuading him to surrender his weapon.

There is no archetypal American school shooter. Their ranks include a 6-year-old boy who killed a classmate because he didn't like her and a 15-year-old girl who did the same to a friend for rejecting her romantic overtures. They also come from backgrounds of all kinds. In some school shootings, the race of the assailant isn't reported, but in those that are, The Post found, the shooter's race almost always reflects the campus's population, with white shooters attacking predominantly white schools and black shooters firing in predominantly African American schools.

The Post analysis also shows that dozens of gunmen shared certain characteristics, and few of them exhibited as many of the most common traits as Oliver did. At the time of the attack, he was 16 - the median age of school shooters. He is male, part of a group that outnumbers female shooters 17 to 1. Like most, he had intended to kill specific people. Also like most, he showed no signs of debilitating mental illness, such as psychosis or schizophrenia.

That last finding undermines what gun rights advocates and President Trump have focused on in Parkland's aftermath. At a convention for political conservatives last month, Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Association, blamed gun violence in school on, among other things, a "failure of America's mental-health system."

Although Nikolas Cruz showed signs of psychological problems before he allegedly killed 17 people, researchers have consistently concluded that they seldom play a role in shootings or violence of any kind.

"Framing the conversation about gun violence in the context of mental illness does a disservice to the victims of violence and unfairly stigmatizes the many others with mental illness," Jessica Henderson Daniel, president of the American Psychological Association, said in a statement. "More important, it does not direct us to appropriate solutions to this public health crisis."

Identifying real solutions has proved exceedingly difficult, in part because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped studying gun violence 22 years ago. At the time, the Republican-led Congress mandated that no CDC funds "may be used to advocate or promote gun control," language that, though vague, halted almost all study of gun violence - now, according to a recent review, the third-leading cause of children's deaths.

The dearth of government-produced data is particularly frustrating for Peter Langman, a psychologist who analyzes school shooters.

"To me," he said, "it doesn't make any sense that whole realms of research are not possible."

At trial in 2014, Oliver testified that he had been bullied, but he also acknowledged that the teen he shot - who needed more than 20 surgeries - had only annoyed him. Oliver insisted that he had blacked out that day and remembered nothing about what had happened until he fired the first round.

Prosecutors, however, noted that Oliver, later sentenced to 27 years in prison, had loaded a shotgun, walked to school and, according to surveillance video, repeatedly looked around to see whether anyone was watching him.

What remains for survivors? Grief, guilt and fear.

One day in 2008, Samantha Haviland sat on the floor of a school library's backroom, the lights off, the door locked. Crouched all around her were teenagers, pretending that someone with a gun was trying to murder them.

No one there knew that Haviland, then a counselor in her mid-20s, had been at Columbine nine years earlier. On that day, April 20, 1999, she had been in the cafeteria, selling chips and soda from a food cart to raise money for the golf team. Haviland, always an overachiever, had taken second place at a tournament the day before and felt so good about it that she'd worn a blue dress and high-heeled clogs to school. As hundreds of kids ate their lunches, she and three friends talked about prom, which they'd gone to the previous weekend.

Then two girls burst into the room. Someone had been shot, they screamed. Someone had a gun.

Haviland froze, but her friends grabbed her, and they fled into the back of an auditorium. Moments later, she heard four or five shots and an explosion. Everyone sprinted out as Haviland briefly paused to take off her shoes. Barefoot, she ran after them and into the hallway, and just as she reached one door, it closed in front of her. A teacher in another part of the building had pulled the fire alarm and, as she would later learn, it saved her life, because down that corridor, Harris and Klebold were slaughtering anyone they could find.

Afterward, as the shock and grief solidified her plan to become a counselor, Haviland didn't get counseling herself. She didn't deserve it, she thought, not when classmates had died or been maimed. Many others had suffered far more, Haviland decided. She would be okay.

But now there she was, a decade later, sitting in the darkness, practicing once again to escape what so many of her friends did not. Then she heard footsteps. Then, beneath the door, she saw the shadow of an administrator who was checking the locks. Then her chest began to throb, and her body began to quake and, suddenly, Haviland knew she wouldn't be okay.

Researchers who study trauma still aren't certain why people who experience it as children react in such different ways. For some, it doesn't surface for years, making the effects harder to trace back to their origin. For others, the torment overwhelms them from the start and, in many cases, never lets go.

Karson Robinson was 6 when a teenager opened fire on the playground of his elementary school in Townville, S.C., on Sept. 28, 2016. Three days later, on his seventh birthday, he learned that his beloved friend, Jacob Hall, hadn't survived the bullet that hit him. That's when the guilt took hold. Karson had leaped a fence and run at the first sound of the gunfire.

Maybe, Karson thought, he could have saved Jacob, the smallest child in their class, if he hadn't fled. At home, Karson began to explode in anger, breaking anything he could reach. Other times, he insisted that everyone hated him.

In October, before a doctor finally diagnosed the boy with PTSD, he had a party for his eighth birthday, and at the end, they released balloons into the sky for Jacob. Afterward, he walked off by himself. His mother followed, asking what was wrong.

"I should have waited for Jacob," he told her.

Haviland thinks a lot about the thousands of children like Karson who, she contends, America has done so little to protect since Columbine. Many of Haviland's former classmates have found success and happiness, but others have tried to ease their pain with drugs and alcohol. Some have considered killing themselves.

One high school friend sent Haviland a message online a few weeks ago, saying that, since the Las Vegas slaughter this past October, she'd been so stricken with anxiety she could barely leave her house.

A decade ago, after Haviland's panic attack in the library, she finally got therapy and has come a long way since. She goes to movies and malls and political rallies. She has so often told her story - of hearing the shots, taking off her shoes, sprinting barefoot through the hallways - that telling it again doesn't wreck her anymore.

She knows, though, that the trauma remains.

Three years ago, someone accidentally pressed a panic button in the school where she was working, signaling to police that a shooter was in the building. Haviland wasn't there at the time, but she pulled up in her car just as the officers did. Then, in front of her, she saw students streaming outside, their hands in the air.

She began to sob.

Allyson Chiu, Alex Horton and Jennifer Jenkins contributed to this report.

Our methodology for this analysis

The Washington Post spent a year determining how many children have been affected by school shootings, beyond just those killed or injured. To do that, reporters attempted to identify every act of gunfire at a primary or secondary school during school hours since the Columbine High massacre on April 20, 1999. Using Nexis, news articles, open-source databases, law enforcement reports, information from school websites, and calls to schools and police departments, The Post reviewed more than 1,000 alleged incidents, but counted only those that happened on campuses immediately before, during or just after classes.

Shootings at after-hours events, accidental discharges that caused no injuries to anyone other than the person handling the gun, and suicides that occurred privately or posed no threat to other children were excluded. Gunfire at colleges and universities, which affects young adults rather than kids, also was not counted.

After finding 197 incidents of gun violence that met The Post's criteria, reporters organized them in a database for analysis. Four schools experienced two episodes of gunfire over the past 19 years, which is why The Post's final school total was 193. Because the federal government does not track school shootings, it's possible that the analysis did not find every incident that would qualify.

To calculate how many children were exposed to gunfire in each school shooting, The Post relied on enrollment figures and demographic information from the U.S. Education Department, including the Common Core of Data and the Private School Universe Survey. The analysis used attendance figures from the year of the shooting for the vast majority of the schools. Then The Post deducted 7 percent from the enrollment total because that is, on average, how many students miss school each day, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Reporters subtracted 50 percent from a school's enrollment if the act of gun violence occurred just before or after the school day. Return to story.

About this story

Originally published March 21, 2018.

Allyson Chiu, Alex Horton and Jennifer Jenkins contributed to this report. Graphics by Gabriel Florit. Design and development by Courtney Kan.
×
More stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The extraordinary number of kids who have endured school shootings since Columbine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thirteen at Columbine. Twenty-six at Sandy Hook. Seventeen at Marjory Stoneman Douglas. Over the past two decades, a handful of massacres that have come to define school shootings in this country are almost always remembered for the students and educators slain. Death tollsare repeated so often that the numbers and places become permanently linked.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After the devastating shooting in Orlando, we take a look at America's gun laws SUBSCRIBE for more at http://bit.ly/1qC9RqV Follow us on Twitter at https://twitter.com/Daily_E... Follow us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/Da... Check out the Express website at http://www.express.co.uk/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At least 10 students were killed at a Santa Fe, Texas high school on May 18 after a classmate opened fire with a shotgun and a .38 revolver.

The shooting came just three months after another teen shooter killed 17 in Parkland, Florida, sparking nationwide youth-led protests over gun violence - and a familiar debate over what changes could really make a difference.

As a criminologist, I often hear misconceptions creeping into the debate that springs up whenever a mass shooting occurs.

Here's what the research actually shows.

#1: More guns don't make you safer

A study I conducted on mass shootings indicated that this phenomenon is not limited to the United States.

Mass shootings also took place in 25 other wealthy nations between 1983 and 2013, but the number of mass shootings in the United States far surpasses that of any other country included in the study during the same period of time.

The U.S. had 78 mass shootings during that 30-year period.

The highest number of mass shootings experienced outside the United States was in Germany - where seven shootings occurred.

In the other 24 industrialized countries taken together, 41 mass shootings took place.

In other words, the U.S. had nearly double the number of mass shootings than all other 24 countries combined in the same 30-year period.

Another significant finding is that mass shootings and gun ownership rates are highly correlated. The higher the gun ownership rate, the more a country is susceptible to experiencing mass shooting incidents. This association remains high even when the United States is withdrawn from the analysis.

Similar results have been found by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, which states that countries with higher levels of firearm ownership also have higher firearm homicide rates.

My study also shows a strong correlation between mass shooting casualties and overall death by firearms rates. However, in this last analysis, the relation seems to be mainly driven by the very high number of deaths by firearms in the United States. The relation disappears when the United States is withdrawn from the analysis.

#2: Mass shootings are more frequent

A recent study published by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center shows that the frequency of mass shooting is increasing over time. The researchers measured the increase by calculating the time between the occurrence of mass shootings. According to the research, the days separating mass shooting occurrence went from on average 200 days during the period of 1983 to 2011 to 64 days since 2011.

What is most alarming with mass shootings is the fact that this increasing trend is moving in the opposite direction of overall intentional homicide rates in the U.S., which decreased by almost 50 percent since 1993 and in Europe where intentional homicides decreased by 40 percent between 2003 and 2013.

#3: Restricting sales works

Mario Anzuoni/REUTERS

Thanks to the Second Amendment, the United States has permissive gun licensing laws. This is in contrast to most developed countries, which have restrictive laws.

According to a seminal work by criminologists George Newton and Franklin Zimring, permissive gun licensing laws refer to a system in which everyone except specially prohibited groups of persons can purchase a firearm. In such a system, an individual does not have to justify purchasing a weapon; rather, the licensing authority has the burden of proof to deny gun acquisition.

By contrast, restrictive gun licensing laws refer to a system in which individuals who want to purchase firearms must demonstrate to a licensing authority that they have valid reasons to get a gun - like using it on a shooting range or going hunting - and that they demonstrate "good character ."

The differences between these type of gun laws have important impacts. Countries with more restrictive gun licensing laws show fewer deaths by firearms and a lower gun ownership rate.

#4: Background checks work

In most of the restrictive background checks performed in developed countries like Canada and Australia, citizens are required to train for gun handling, obtain a license for hunting or provide proof of membership to a shooting range.

Individuals must prove that they do not belong to any "prohibited group," such as the mentally ill, criminals, children or those at high risk of committing violent crime, such as individuals with a police record of threatening the life of another.

Here's the bottom line. With these provisions, most U.S. active shooters would have been denied the purchase of a firearm.

#5: Most mass shootings are not terrorism

Journalists sometimes describe mass shooting as a form of domestic terrorism. This connection may be misleading.

There is no doubt that mass shootings are "terrifying" and "terrorize" the community where they have happened. However, not all active shooters involved in mass shooting have a political message or cause.

For example, the church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, in June 2015 was a hate crime but was not judged by the federal government to be a terrorist act.

The majority of active shooters are linked to mental health issues, bullying and disgruntled employees. Active shooters may be motivated by a variety of personal or political motivations, usually not aimed at weakening government legitimacy. Frequent motivations are revenge or a quest for power.
Editor's note: This piece was updated on May 18, 2018 and Oct. 2, 2017. It was originally published on Dec. 3, 2015.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 things to know about mass shootings in America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At least 10 students were killed at a Santa Fe, Texas high school on May 18 after a classmate opened fire with a shotgun and a .38 revolver. The shooting came just three months after another teen shooter killed 17 in Parkland, Florida, sparking nationwide youth-led protests over gun violence - and a familiar debate over what changes could really make a difference.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lack of data means effects of gun laws aren't well known

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the debate around gun laws continues in the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting last month, a new report by the nonprofit RAND Corporation looks at some of the factors that could affect gun policies like background checks, age limits and banning assault weapons.

# data[].attributes.headline
More mass shootings in schools in the last 18Years than the entire 20th Century

# data[].attributes.subject
More mass shootings in schools in the last 18Years than the entire 20th Century

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TAMPA, FLORIDA (AFP) - Mass shootings at US schools are rising rapidly, killing more people in the last 18 years than in the entire 20th century, said a study on Thursday (April 19).

The report in the Journal of Child and Family Studies tallied mass shootings - events when at least one shooter intentionally killed or injured at least four others - and death tolls at US schools for children and teens aged five to 18, going back to 1940.

The study excluded gang shootings and any shootings that occurred at universities.

"The United States had no mass school shootings that fit our criteria until 1940, when a junior high school principal killed the superintendent, the high school principal, the district business manager, and two teachers, before attempting suicide, because he thought he was going to be fired at the end of the school year," said the report.

Researchers found no mass school shootings in the 1950s and 1960s, followed by "a steady increase beginning with a school shooting in 1979 orchestrated by a 16-year-old female with mental health issues who began shooting at an elementary school, killing two adults and injuring eight students and one adult", it said.

Since then, the 1990s were a peak period, when 36 people were killed in 13 gun rampages, said the report.

From 2000-2018, researchers counted 66 deaths across 22 mass shootings at schools.

That's higher than the death toll of 55 in 22 mass school shootings spanning the six decades from 1940-1999, it said.

"In less than 18 years, we have already seen more deaths related to school shootings than in the whole 20th century," said lead author Antonis Katsiyannis of Clemson University.

"One alarming trend is that the overwhelming majority of 21st-century shooters were adolescents, suggesting that it is now easier for them to access guns, and that they more frequently suffer from mental health issues or limited conflict resolution skills."

Sixty per cent of mass school shootings in the United States in the 20th century were perpetrated by adolescents, aged 11-18.

So far this century, 77 per cent of the mass school shootings have been carried out by adolescents.

The study cautioned that the death tolls and number of shootings offered no clear link to "more adolescent problems or high-powered weapons as a causality", but said "the trends must be noted".

US gun violence is an "epidemic that must be addressed", concluded the study, urging expanded background checks, a ban on assault weapons, and expanded support for addressing mental health issues.

School shootings comprise just a fraction of the more than 30,000 gun-related deaths annually in the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More mass shootings at US schools in last 18 years than entire 20th century: Study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TAMPA, FLORIDA (AFP) - Mass shootings at US schools are rising rapidly, killing more people in the last 18 years than in the entire 20th century, said a study on Thursday (April 19).

# data[].attributes.headline
What is the issue with having the right to bear arms

# data[].attributes.subject
What is the issue with having the right to bear arms

# data[].attributes.body
Why do Americans have more guns than any other nations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are an absolutely insane number of guns in the United States: More than 300 million, more than one per person.

Per capita, our gun ownership rate is 112 percent. That's higher than any other country in the world, by a lot. In second-place Serbia, the per capita rate is about 60. In most every other country, it hovers about 20 guns per 100 residents. In many, many places, it's even lower. Virtually no citizens in Southeast Asia and Japan are packing heat.

How the United States got here has a lot to do with how we regulate weapons. Our gun-control policies are much weaker than those in many other countries. But what makes our gun culture so unique? Why are U.S. gun policies and ownership numbers so wildly outside the mainstream?

To explain that, Jennifer Dawn Carlson, a sociology professor at theUniversity of Arizona, points to this chart, created by Gallup:

"I actually think this is the key," Carlson told me in an email. "As you can see, the lines crossed in the late 1960s and haven't touched since."

That's important, Carlson says, because it was in the 1960s and '70s that Americans began talking about guns and gun rights as a crime issue. This framing, Carlson explained, turned the issue of gun ownership into a divisive political one, rather than a public health crisis. The battle lines - are guns a way to protect against crime, or the cause of it? - were drawn. And we're still fighting those fights today.

Crime is not nearly so core to the narrative in other countries. In Canada, for example, gun-control activists framed the 1989 Montreal Massacre, when a young man burst into a university classroom and killed six women, as a women's right's issue. And places where guns are seen as a tool for self-protection, like South Africa and Guatemala, often also have high incidences of gun violence.

Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law and author of " Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America," also sees the 1960s as a key part of the story of America's exceptional gun culture.

Of course, he notes, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Throughout the 1800s, state courts upheld an interpretation of that law that focused on the individual's right to own weapons. But things really changed in the 1960s.
[Mass shootings: How U.S. gun culture compares with the rest of the world]
That's when the National Rifle Association transformed itself from an organization focused on hunting and training into a political machine. As Winkler explained, that wasn't inevitable. The organization's leaders endorsed the 1968 Gun Control Act. They even considered retreating from Washington and moving to Colorado Springs. That angered a group of gun rights hard-liners in the membership who staged a revolt that transformed the NRA into a gun rights group virtually overnight, Winkler said.

And to win political wars, the NRA has leveraged people's fear. The 1970s were a time of starkly rising crime rates, when major cities were on the verge of bankruptcy and blight.

"People thought crime was rampant," Winkler said. And the NRA made crime a central part of its story. When crime spiked in the '70s, the NRA argued that Americans needed weapons to protect themselves. In ads, the organization depicted people using their weapons to defend themselves against intruders.

The NRA is "really an American phenomenon," Winkler said. As he explained, most other industrialized countries began seriously regulating firearms in the early 20th century. By the time the gun rights movement got started in the United States, there just weren't a lot of civilian gun owners in other places. So there wasn't the same sense, in other places, that something could be lost.

"There were very few people with guns to protect," Winkler said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analysis | Everyone knows Americans own more guns than residents of any other country. But why?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are an absolutely insane number of guns in the United States: More than 300 million, more than one per person. Per capita, our gun ownership rate is 112 percent. That's higher than any other country in the world, by a lot. In second-place Serbia, the per capita rate is about 60.