# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The noise in the hallway could have been anything: a locker door shutting, textbooks dropping on the floor. But when he heard a sudden sound outside his classroom a couple of weeks after the Florida school shooting, Dan Greenberg, a high school English teacher in Sylvania, Ohio, assumed the worst.

"The immediate response is thinking about the shooting, thinking about what happened in Parkland," he said, adding that before the Feb. 14 massacre, "that was never the first thought in my mind."

Now, Greenberg said, he's hyper-aware of the possibility of more school shootings.

"That's scary to have that as the default mindset," he said.

During the same week, over at Pine Ridge Elementary School in Aurora, Colorado, special education teacher Jennie Campbell was showing her third-graders an educational video in which Blackbeard, an infamous pirate, gets shot. She hadn't discussed the Parkland shooting with her students, youngsters with moderate to severe needs who she describes as "resilient but also very aware of what's going on."

"One of my students said, 'There's gunshots, just like at the school in Florida'" after seeing the pirate get shot, Campbell said. "I didn't even think about it at that moment. What do you do? What do you say to that?"

The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland happened nearly a month ago, and hundreds of miles away from Sylvania and Aurora. But the attack, which left 17 people dead, has left an indelible uneasiness among teachers and students across the country - and a determination to bring a sense of safety back to the classroom.

"It's an everyday conversation, and it's not just school safety. It's 'what are we going to do about it?'" said Justin Fox-Bailey, a high school English teacher in Snohomish, Washington, for 20 years and the president of the Snohomish Education Association, the teachers union there.

"They don't want to see any more kids die at school. They don't want to see any more teachers or other educators die at school."

"I don't hear from teachers on any given day that they're worried for their safety," he said. "But they're worried generally, and they don't want to see any more kids die at school. They don't want to see any more teachers or other educators die at school."

On Wednesday, thousands of students across the U.S. plan to participate in a National School Walkout to protest gun violence, stepping out of class for 17 minutes in honor of each Parkland victim.

While some schools say they will discipline students for participating in the walkout, others, like Winter Hill Community Innovation School in Somerville, Massachusetts, are taking a different approach.

"We want to have a discussion with students about what this means to them and listen to their voices, because that's important," said Chad Mazza, principal of Winter Hill, which has about 400 students from pre-kindergarten through eighth grade. "The students appreciate that. They know we care about what they think."

While the national walkout is student-led, some educators say they want a chance to galvanize, too. At Chelsea High School in Chelsea, Alabama, principal Wayne Trucks expects some teachers to come to school wearing orange - symbolizing their support for gun control. The high school plans to host a forum in an auditorium on Wednesday where students and teachers can express themselves.

"We're going to give teachers an opportunity to participate, as long as they provide supervision for the students who don't want to participate," Wayne said.

Other teachers have set their sights on a walkout of their own. Campbell, the special education teacher in Colorado, said her local educators' group, the Cherry Creek Education Association, is considering a teachers' walkout on April 20 - the anniversary of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting.

Such a walkout, she said, would give educators a chance to voice their opposition to a proposal by President Donald Trump to train and arm some teachers. Last Friday, Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed new gun restrictions into state law, including a provision that allows teachers to arm themselves, and the White House on Sunday promised federal aid to train teachers to carry weapons.

"It blows my mind that rather than having a sit-down conversation about what we can do to change and help schools, let's just fix it by arming teachers," Campbell said. "I went to school to teach kids, to have them love learning and help them find what their passion is. I did not go to school to protect children in that sense."

Fifty-six percent of Americans disagree with Trump's proposal to have some teachers carry concealed guns to increase school safety, according to an NBC News|SurveyMonkey poll.

Related: Poll: Majority of Americans disagree with Trump's proposal to arm teachers

But some educators have cheered the idea - including those at the Harrold independent school district in the tiny rural town of Harrold, in West Texas. The district is believed to have been the first in the nation to arm teachers when it began in October 2007.

According to Superintendent David Thweatt, it has quelled fears of "what if it happens here?"

"I can't imagine taking on the dual role of taking care of kids and making sure their needs are met educationally, socially and emotionally, and then at the same time, having a loaded weapon and having to defend students if the need came up."

"The parents are glad that their kids are protected. After every shooting, you get copycat situations, and we don't get those," said Thweatt, who created the program after five people were killed in a 2006 shooting at an Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania.

At Sidney City Schools in Sidney, Ohio, not only are more than 40 teachers armed, but their classrooms have bulletproof vests stashed in them, said Superintendent John Scheu. Teachers "go through an immense amount of training to be even considered" to be armed, he said.

"When President Trump said he's for arming teachers, I think this is taken out of context, because I don't think he means arming every teacher with a handgun," Scheu said. "I think he means those who are physically, emotionally and psychologically capable."

Greenberg, the Ohio English teacher, want lawmakers to think of other solutions - such as more school counseling services and less access to firearms.

"I can't imagine being armed myself," Greenberg said. "I can't imagine taking on the dual role of taking care of kids and making sure their needs are met educationally, socially and emotionally, and then at the same time, having a loaded weapon and having to defend students if the need came up."

CORRECTION (March 12, 2018, 4:36 p.m. ET): A previous version of this story misidentified the subject matter of an educational video. It was about a pirate, not a bear.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teachers struggle with new 'default mindset' after shooting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The noise in the hallway could have been anything: a locker door shutting, textbooks dropping on the floor. But when he heard a sudden sound outside his classroom a couple of weeks after the Florida school shooting, Dan Greenberg, a high school English teacher in Sylvania, Ohio, assumed the worst.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
White House proposals to tackle the threat of mass shootings in US schools fall short of a call by President Donald Trump himself to raise the age limit for buying assault rifles.

Mr Trump said he would work to raise the limit from 18 to 21 but his actual action plan passes the issue to a new federal commission on school safety.

The plan also proposes to fund firearms training for teachers.

Seventeen people were shot dead at a Florida high school last month.

Former pupil Nikolas Cruz, 19, has been charged with 17 counts of murder and 17 of attempted murder.

He told investigators he had used an AR-15 assault rifle, which he had bought legally, to fire into classrooms during the attack on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland on 14 February.

One mother, two school shootings

Trump clashes with Republicans on guns

Guns banned on dating app Bumble

How does the plan differ from Mr Trump's proposal?
White House officials described the plan revealed on Sunday as a fulfilment of the president's call for action after Parkland, the Associated Press reports.
As well as setting up the new committee, it proposes to:

Fund programmes to train school staff to use firearms

Encourage military veterans and retired police officers to become teachers

Improve background and mental health checks

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who will chair the new committee, said the proposals were "meaningful actions, steps that can be taken right away to help protect students".

Speaking last month, President Trump had appeared indignant at the fact Americans could legally buy assault rifles from the age of 18 yet had to wait until 21 to buy handguns.

"I mean, so they buy a revolver - a handgun - they buy at the age of 21," he told school officials.

"And yet, these other weapons that we talk about... They're allowed to buy them at 18. So how does that make sense? We're going to work on getting the age up to 21 instead of 18."

Why might the president have changed position?

He has reportedly come under pressure from the country's main gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA), not to change existing legislation.
The NRA is suing Florida after it passed a state gun control law which raises the legal age for buying rifles to 21 as well as allowing for the training and arming of school staff.
According to the NRA, the bill signed off by Governor Rick Scott, a staunch ally of the gun lobby who like Mr Trump is Republican, violates the US constitution.

What do Mr Trump's critics say?

Chuck Schumer, leader of the opposition Democrats in the Senate, went on Twitter to dismiss the action plan as "baby steps".

Avery Gardiner, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said: "Americans expecting real leadership to prevent gun violence will be disappointed and troubled by President Trump's dangerous retreat from his promise."

Survivors of the Florida shooting have been pressing for a complete ban on sales of assault weapons to the public.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
White House proposals to tackle the threat of mass shootings in US schools fall short of a call by President Donald Trump himself to raise the age limit for buying assault rifles. Mr Trump said he would work to raise the limit from 18 to 21 but his actual action plan passes the issue to a new federal commission on school safety.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Florida Gun Bill: What’s in It, and What Isn’t (Published 2018)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The bill would raise the minimum age for rifle purchases and arm school personnel. But it would not suspend AR-15 sales or ban high-capacity magazines.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ghastly Wounds From Military-Style Rifles

# data[].attributes.subject
Ghastly Wounds From Military-Style Rifles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Perhaps no one knows the devastating wounds inflicted by assault-style rifles better than the trauma surgeons who struggle to repair them. The doctors say they are haunted by their experiences confronting injuries so dire they struggle to find words to describe them.

At a high school in Parkland, Fla., 17 people were recently killed with just such a weapon - a semiautomatic AR-15. It was legal there for Nikolas Cruz, 19, the suspect in the shooting, to buy a civilian version of the military's standard rifle, while he would have had to be 21 to buy a less powerful and accurate handgun.

Many factors determine the severity of a wound, including a bullet's mass, velocity and composition, and where it strikes. The AR-15, like the M4 and M16 rifles issued to American soldiers, shoots lightweight, high-speed bullets that can cause grievous bone and soft tissue wounds, in part by turning sideways, or "yawing," when they hit a person. Surgeons say the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields.

Civilian owners of military-style weapons can also buy soft-nosed or hollow-point ammunition, often used for hunting, that lacks a full metal jacket and can expand and fragment on impact. Such bullets, which can cause wider wound channels, are proscribed in most military use.

A radiologist at the hospital that treated victims of the Parkland attack wrote in The Atlantic about a surgeon there who "opened a young victim in the operating room and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit."

What follows are the recollections of five trauma surgeons. Three of them served in the military, and they emphasized that their opinions are their own and do not represent those of the armed forces. One has treated civilian victims of such weapons in American cities. And a pediatric surgeon treated victims of a Texas church shooting last year.

Dr. Jeremy Cannon, the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine.

He served in Iraq and Afghanistan and is a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserve.

"The tissue destruction is almost unimaginable. Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed. The injuries to the chest or abdomen - it's like a bomb went off." If a bullet hits an arm or a leg, he said, the limb often hangs at an unnatural angle. Such victims can need a dozen surgeries over months. "Some eventually decide to undergo an amputation if there is severe pain in the limb and it is dysfunctional," he said.

"Bystanders are traumatized just seeing the victims. It's awful, terrible. It's just a ghastly thing to see."

Dr. Cannon recalled the aphorism by José Narosky, the Argentine writer: "In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."

His corollary: "In mass shootings, there are no unwounded victims."

Dr. Martin Schreiber, Oregon Health & Science University.

He was an Army reservist who served in Iraq in 2005 and in Afghanistan in 2010 and 2014.

What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly, he said, is that the bullets travel so fast. Those from an M16 or AR-15 can depart the muzzle at a velocity of more than 3,000 feet per second, while bullets from many common handguns move at less than half or a third that speed. The result: "The energy imparted to a human body by a high velocity weapon is exponentially greater" than that from a handgun.

"You will see multiple organs shattered. The exit wounds can be a foot wide."

"I've seen people with entire quadrants of their abdomens destroyed."

Dr. Jeffrey Kerby, the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

He was formerly an Air Force surgeon.

Dr. Kerby will never forget the first victim of a high velocity bullet wound he treated when he was serving in the Southern Philippines 16 years ago. The soldier had been shot in the outer thigh. His first thought was that the wound did not look so bad. There was just a tiny hole where the bullet went in. Then he looked where the bullet had exited. The man's inner thigh, he said, "was completely blown out."

Later he came to expect the telltale pattern. "You will typically see a small penetrating wound. Then you roll the patient over and you see a huge exit wound."

The high energy bullet creates a blast wave around the bullet. And the yaw can contribute to the larger exit wound. Striking bone can also cause bone fragments that radiate outward, cutting tissue in each fragment's path.

"Then the bullet starts tumbling, causing more and more destruction." Even a bullet that misses bone can result in surprising damage; as the blast wave travels through the body, it pushes tissues and organs aside in a temporary cavity larger than the bullet itself. They bounce back once the bullet passes. Organs are damaged, blood vessels rip and many victims bleed to death before they reach a hospital. Those who survive long enough are whisked to operating rooms, but often the injuries cannot be repaired.

"If they are shot in the torso, there often is not a whole lot we can do," he said.

With a handgun, the bullets mostly damage tissues and organs in their direct path. Eventually, the bullets may be slowed and stopped by the body. Emergency surgery often can save handgun victims.

Dr. Kerby said it used to be that surgeons like him saw victims of assault rifle shootings only in the military. No more. Now, though the wounds are still rare on the streets of Birmingham, he operates on occasional victims - that is, those who survive long enough to reach the hospital.

"These weapons are meant to kill people," he said.

Dr. Alok Gupta, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

Dr. Gupta never served in the military, but he has treated victims of assault-style weapons in New York and Baltimore. Attacks using AR-15-style weapons are still rare, he emphasized. He sees mostly handgun wounds and some from shotguns.

"A single wound from a handgun follows a narrow path, pretty much the direct path the bullet took," Dr. Gupta said. "It is easier to figure out what is injured." Even a bullet wound to the heart can be repaired, he said, if the patient survives long enough to get to the hospital.

But like other trauma surgeons, Dr. Gupta has been struck by the devastation modern rifle bullets produce. The wide swath of damage makes it difficult to determine the extent of the injuries, and even more difficult to repair them. And if the bullet strikes the heart or other major organ, the victim usually cannot be saved.

"What we hear about in the news are the mass shootings," Dr. Gupta said.

The victims of military-style weapons that Dr. Gupta has treated in American cities are the silent victims.

Dr. Lillian Liao, University Hospital and UT Health in San Antonio

She operated on children shot in Sutherland Springs, Tex., at the First Baptist Church. Twenty-six churchgoers were killed and 20 others were wounded in a mass shooting carried out with an AR-15 rifle.

Nine of the victims made it to her hospital that day. Four were children, one of whom died.

Dr. Liao was initially clinical in describing the wounds during an interview. "Muscles and skin and fat surrounding skin can be sheared off. We saw holes in intestines and bladders."

Asked about the emotional impact of the killings, she said she thought she had moved on. Then came the Parkland shootings, and the horror came flooding back.
Lauren Katzenberg and Thomas Gibbons-Neff contributed to this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? 'A Ghastly Thing to See'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Perhaps no one knows the devastating wounds inflicted by assault-style rifles better than the trauma surgeons who struggle to repair them. The doctors say they are haunted by their experiences confronting injuries so dire they struggle to find words to describe them.

# data[].attributes.headline
We Already Ask Too Much of Teachers. Don't Ask Them to Take on Kids With Guns

# data[].attributes.subject
We Already Ask Too Much of Teachers. Don't Ask Them to Take on Kids With Guns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the past weeks, the steadfast demands of the Parkland, Fla., students have resounded through the suburban Oregon high school where I teach visual arts. A group of senior girls, spurred to action by the horrors at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, organized a walkout of their own. I listened as the students shouted demands for safer schools and an end to fear in the classroom. Though deeply proud of the protesters, I was confronting a brutal reality: Neither my students nor I feel safe at school.

The shootings just keep happening. When will it be our turn? When will despair take the shape of a teenager with a gun and turn our school into a shooting gallery?

We've been practicing the drill for years. We lock and block the doors, throw the light switch, then huddle on the floor in the darkest corners of the classroom - 36 teenagers and one adult trying to be as quiet as possible. We wait for the rattle of the door handle, and then it's over. The all-clear.

I tell a joke, try to change the mood and resume class. One grim effect of these procedures, though, is the normalization of a threat so abnorma l it's hard to take in. We've desensitized ourselves to the true horror of what we're playing out. I hope the students grasp the seriousness of the drill and don't internalize the fear. But they can't help themselves, and neither can I.

At the beginning of the semester, I gave my new students a questionnaire. I asked them: "What really stresses you out?" One answer: "That I might die in this building."

I cannot convey what it's like to walk into your workplace every morning wondering if today is the day. I cannot explain the trepidation I feel when I have to confront that student - the one making the disturbing art, who doesn't smile or interact with his peers - to tell him he needs to tone down the violence in his work. Is this the kid who will come back for me later, armed and ready to exact his revenge?

Dear America: You've given me an impossible task and condemned me for my failure to perform it.

I imagine all new teachers start their careers ready to take a set of ragtag students from disarray to academic excellence. If you're going to make it in the system, however, that illusion must be shed. Almost a third of new teachers jump ship by year three, when the challenges of the profession - the long hours, the constant planning and grading, the never-ending worries about meeting your students' needs - become unsustainable.

In my first years on the job, my commute home often felt like a therapy session sans therapist. I'd replay every missed opportunity, every interpersonal challenge, and then I'd cry. I couldn't reach everyone. Part of teaching would always be about failure: failure to connect, failure to notice, failure to address the nuanced and specific needs of all the students. It was a numbers game I would always lose, and a truth I had to embrace to become a more effective educator.

Nevertheless, the archetype of the teacher-martyr - toiling into the night, capable of reversing any tide, superhumanly counteracting the problems of our society - is what we've bought into as a culture. And post Parkland, isn't taking a bullet the ultimate expression of this archetype?

I'm awed by the teachers at Stoneman Douglas who died to save their students' lives. But I question the motivations of those, including the president, who hold them up as icons. Valorizing teachers as saviors is easier than honoring the profession in ways that actually matter. Heroes don't need smaller class sizes or adequate retirement accounts. The truth is, those teachers should never have had to put their lives on the line for their students. It wasn't their job. We are not warriors, we are teachers.

This year of classroom teaching has been the most demanding of my life. Not because of the subjects I teach, my class sizes or workload, but because of the mounting unhappiness of my students. So many admit to depression and anxiety, or express a simmering dread about the future. And how can I argue with that? When you regularly crouch in the corner of a dark classroom, practicing for your own death, it's difficult to hope.

I no longer naively dream of changing the lives of each of my students. My goals have narrowed: to get them invested in learning, to listen, to be their advocate (especially for the most marginalized), to create a space for inquiry and expression. If I do that well, I'll at least help them find their own voices. But believe me, it's a Sisyphean task. They're teenagers after all.

School is the place where they experiment with the lofty promises of the American Dream, and we ply them with the message that they can be anything, do anything. Study hard, make friends, find your path and your talent and the world will be yours for the taking. But what if all that proves remarkably out of reach? And what if school, no matter how hard we try, is just a relentless reminder of failure, not possibility?

For some the emotional stresses are too heavy, the hurts too great, their invisibility too complete. Can anyone be surprised that the most disgruntled, the ones who thought the dream was tailor-made for them, return to the institution that let them down, bringing their disillusion with them -- and sometimes an AR-15. Pulling the trigger is the last act of personal agency these boys (and so far they are all boys, and most of them white) have to offer.

Dear America: You've given me an impossible task and condemned me for my failure to perform it. Now, you - or at least the president, the NRA and various politicians - assure me that I can redeem myself by holding a gun, firing back and blasting away the despair. But I will not hold that gun and I cannot be that shield. I can't figuratively save my students and I can't physically save them either.

We ask too much of teachers, schools and children. Some students may thrive, many more survive, but that doesn't make the world we've built any less dangerous or difficult. We're sacrificing our children for the sake of false promises, and we wonder why they keep coming back with guns in their hands.

Belle Chesler teaches in Beaverton, Ore. A longer version of this essay appears at TomDispatch.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We already ask too much of teachers. Don't ask them to take on kids with guns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the past weeks, the steadfast demands of the Parkland, Fla., students have resounded through the suburban Oregon high school where I teach visual arts. A group of senior girls, spurred to action by the horrors at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, organized a walkout of their own.

# data[].attributes.headline
Experts Say: Here's How To Prevent The Next School Shooting

# data[].attributes.subject
Experts Say: Here's How To Prevent The Next School Shooting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After Parkland, there have been many calls to make schools a "harder target" -for example, by arming teachers. But there's a decent amount of research out there on what actually makes schools safer, and most of it doesn't point to more guns.

On the Friday after the deadly shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Matthew Mayer, a professor at the Rutgers Graduate School of Education, got an email during a faculty meeting.

The email was from Shane Jimerson, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Both specialize in the study of school violence.

That email led to nearly two weeks of long days, Mayer says, for some of the leading experts in the field. On conference calls and in Google docs they shaped a concise, eight-point "Call for Action To Prevent Gun Violence In The United States of America."

Around 200 universities, national education and mental health groups, school districts, and more than 2,300 individual experts, have signed on to support this document in the weeks since.

Their topline message: Don't harden schools. Make them softer, by improving social and emotional health.

"If we're really talking about prevention, my perspective is that we should go for the public health approach," says Ron Avi Astor at the University of Southern California, who also helped draft the plan.

A public health approach to disease means, instead of waiting for people to be rushed to emergency rooms with heart attacks or the flu, you go into the community: with vaccinations, screenings, fruits and vegetables, walking trails and exercise coaches. You screen and regulate environmental hazards, like a nearby polluting factory. You keep watch on reported cases of illness, to stop a new outbreak in its tracks.

A public health approach to school shootings, Astor explains, would be much along the same lines.

Instead of waiting for people to, again, be rushed into emergency rooms, you go into the community with preventive resources. You do your best to lower the background levels of bullying and discrimination. You track the data and perform what is called "threat assessments" on potential risks.

And, these experts say, you remove the major "environmental hazard" that contributes to gun violence: the guns. The eight-point plan calls for universal background checks, a ban on assault-style weapons, and something called Gun Violence Protection Orders: a type of emergency order that would allow police to seize a gun when there is an imminent threat.

What sets this call to action apart from other policy proposals is not gun control, however, but the research-based approach to violence prevention and response. This is a long haul, say the experts, not a quick fix.

"No matter what you try to do by just hardening the target, we've learned that having the armed officers isn't necessarily going to stop it," says Matthew Mayer at Rutgers. "Having the metal detector or the locked doors isn't going to stop it. The hard work is a lot more effort. You'd better start thinking in a more comprehensive manner about prevention instead of reacting."
Prevention: The first step
School climate may sound fuzzy or abstract. It means the quality of relationships among the students and the adults in a school. It's affected by the school's approach to discipline and behavior, the availability of professionals like counselors and social workers, as well as any social-emotional curriculum taught in the classroom.

School climate, in turn, affects students' mental and emotional health and academic success. And research by Astor and others has consistently found key factors that can make schools safer: cultivate social and emotional health, connect to community resources and respond, particularly, to troubled students.

Why does this matter? Well, for one thing, the very kids who bring weapons to school are more likely to report being bullied or threatened themselves. They may be fearful of gang violence and feel a need to protect themselves on the way back and forth to school.

Or, they may be individually ostracized and aggrieved. This is true not just in the United States, says Astor, but in "Kosovo, Canada, Chile, Israel, the kids who bring weapons to school are reporting tons of victimization."

So, if you devote resources to shutting down bullying, discrimination and harassment, there is a chance to de-escalate conflict before it starts.

And research shows that school climate measures really work. In fact, there's been a steady downward trend in bullying and harassment over the past decade, which Catherine Bradshaw at the University of Virginia attributes in part to evidence-based social and emotional measures.
The witnesses
There is a second reason a better school climate can cut down on violence. It's what Astor refers to as the role of the witness.

He again cites the example of California, which does a comprehensive annual survey. There, 20 to 30 percent of students above the elementary level consistently report seeing a weapon of some kind at school at least once during the year. That's conservatively more than half a million students, just in that one state.

Moreover, based on the survey, at least 125,000 of these students in California were actually threatened or injured by a weapon on school grounds. This includes things like knives and nunchuks as well as guns.

But what happens next?

If that witness, or that victim, has a strong relationship with an adult, they are more likely to report being menaced by a weapon. Whereas, if there is what Astor calls a "no snitching culture" in the school, or the witness fears for their safety, nothing will be done.

He says he's not urging schools to punish or expel the kid who brought the weapon, but, instead, to use "education as an intervention."

This approach is applicable not only for mass shootings, he says, but for violence that arises from disputes between students or when gang violence in the community spills onto school grounds.

And, he says preventing gun violence also means looking at suicide. Suicide is just behind homicide as a leading cause of death for teenagers. When a weapon comes to school, self-harm may be the plan, and a school-climate approach addresses that threat as well.

The researchers' policy plan calls for assessing school climate nationwide; reducing "exclusionary practices" like suspension and expulsion; maintaining physically and emotionally safe schools; and staffing up with specialists like counselors, psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers, both in the school and in the community.
Emergency mode
While school climate is an ongoing background effort, the public-health approach has an emergency mode when it comes to violence. It kicks in when someone does report a person bringing a weapon to school or talking about violence. It's called a "threat assessment."

After the Columbine shooting in 1999, the FBI and the Secret Service each conducted studies of school shootings and shared their knowledge with the nation's educators. They found that there was no one "profile" of a school shooter. But, almost all students who committed homicide had told someone of their intentions.

So, the two law enforcement agencies recommended that schools copy what the Secret Service does when someone makes a threat on a government official. Threat assessment has been required by law in Virginia's schools since 2013, and adopted in many other places.

A threat assessment team consists of the principal, school counselor, school psychologist and a school-based police officer. They talk to the people involved and any witnesses. They try to figure out if the threat is serious: Is it specific? Is there a detailed plan? Is there a weapon?

In a school, the next steps include notifying parents, taking steps to protect victims, and referrals to mental health and law enforcement if appropriate.

Threat assessments are not a fail-safe. A local ABC affiliate in Florida did report, based on school records, that a threat assessment was ordered for Parkland suspect Nikolas Cruz, based on an incident that happened in January 2017, a year before the shooting.

But Dewey Cornell at the University of Virginia, another author of the Call to Action, says researchers have gathered good evidence to support the technique, when implemented fully as in Virginia. Among the positive impacts, he says, are "reduced suspensions and reduced bullying, students and teachers reporting that they feel safer, and students reporting a greater willingness to report threats of violence."

His research also shows that less than 1 percent of threats are ever carried out.

The researchers are hopeful that their Call to Action will break through the noise. But they've been here before, Mayer says. A group of his colleagues wrote something similar in 2012 after the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and after a group of school shootings in 2006. Mayer hopes, this time, people will be paying attention.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Experts Say: Here's How To Prevent The Next School Shooting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After Parkland, there have been many calls to make schools a "harder target" -for example, by arming teachers. But there's a decent amount of research out there on what actually makes schools safer, and most of it doesn't point to more guns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This time, it may be different.

That seems to be the hope after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, that killed at least 17 people and injured at least 14 others. In the days after the shooting, students and activists have called on their peers around the country to demand action. This has so far culminated in two planned events: the National School Walkout on March 14 and the March for Our Lives on March 24.

The theme of both events: Enough is enough.

"Students and staff have the right to teach and learn in an environment free from the worry of being gunned down in their classrooms or on their way home from school," Women's March organizers, who are setting up the school walkout, said in a statement. "Parents have the right to send their kids to school in the mornings and see them home alive at the end of the day."

Alex Wind, one of the survivors of the Florida shooting, echoed the sentiment on NBC's Meet the Press: "We're marching because it's not just schools. It's movie theaters, it's concerts, it's nightclubs. This kind of stuff can't just happen. You know, we are marching for our lives, we're marching for the 17 lives we lost. And we're marching for our children's lives and our children's children and their children."

The students behind the march have also formed a group, #NeverAgain.

Both the events will focus on calling Congress to act on gun violence. They follow several days of fiery speeches by students who survived the shooting, including one by Emma Gonzalez at a gun control rally on Saturday that went viral.

"Politicians who sit in their gilded House and Senate seats funded by the NRA telling us nothing could have ever been done to prevent this, we call BS," Gonzales said. "They say that tougher gun laws do not decrease gun violence. We call BS. They say a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun. We call BS. They say guns are just tools like knives and are as dangerous as cars. We call BS. ... They say that no laws could have been able to prevent the hundreds of senseless tragedies that have occurred. We call BS."

It's typical after mass shootings for there to be renewed calls for action around guns and gun violence - particularly with a push for Congress to enact gun control, which much of the research supports. It's just as typical, however, for these calls to go nowhere: Despite the research and outrage, the demands eventually subside and the public and lawmakers by and large move on.

This has happened dozens of times over the years. The December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in which a gunman killed 20 children, six adults, and himself, similarly led to calls for action. Since then, there have been more than 1,600 mass shootings, killing more than 1,800 people and wounding more than 6,400. Many of these events led to speeches and events, but Congress refused to budge every time.

The hope is that this time could be different.

What the protests hope to accomplish

Here are the event details so far:

The National School Walkout,planned by Women's March organizers, will be on March 14 at 10 am in each time zone. It calls for students, faculty, parents, and others to walk out of school for 17 minutes - one minute for each person who was killed in the Florida school shooting. For more, check out the official website and Facebook page.

The March for Our Lives is scheduled for March 24. The details are thin right now, but students and activists plan to march on Washington, DC, and other US cities. For updates, check out the event's official website.

The march in particular has drawn some big supporters, with Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, and other celebrities donating hundreds of thousands of dollar to the event.

For both events, the idea is to show lawmakers that many people are fed up with the current state of gun violence in the US. Much of the focus is on mass shootings - with widely reported tragedies in Las Vegas; Sutherland Springs, Texas; Marshall County, Kentucky; and Parkland, Florida, in just the past five months alone.

While gun violence and homicides have generally declined over the past couple of decades, America is still a big outlier among developed nations when it comes to both. The US has nearly six times the gun homicide rate of Canada, more than seven times that of Sweden, and nearly 16 times that of Germany, according to United Nations data compiled by the Guardian. (Gun deaths are a big reason that America has a much higher overall homicide rate than other developed nations.)

Mass shootings actually make up a small fraction of America's gun deaths, constituting less than 2 percent of such deaths in 2013. But these events are so horrific and affect so many people at once - in Las Vegas, the gunman killed 58 other people and wounded hundreds more - that they tend to get much more attention when they happen. And America sees a lot of these horrific events: According to CNN, "The US makes up less than 5% of the world's population, but holds 31% of global mass shooters."

This has been true for some time now, but after five months of particularly deadly mass shootings, it seems at least some activists are saying enough is enough.

Some of the response is also perhaps fueled by sentiment against President Donald Trump, who in his speech after the Florida shooting failed to mention gun control at all and tweeted over the weekend that Democrats are to blame for inaction on gun violence. (Although Trump has come around to some milder measures, which by and large improve enforcement of current law, over the past week.)

Just like they don't want to solve the DACA problem, why didn't the Democrats pass gun control legislation when they had both the House & Senate during the Obama Administration. Because they didn't want to, and now they just talk!
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 17, 2018

"You are in that exact position right now, and you want to look back on our history and blame the Democrats? That's disgusting," David Hogg, a survivor of the Florida school shooting, told NBC. "You're the president. You're supposed to bring this nation together, not divide us. How dare you? Children are dying, and their blood is on your hands because of that. Please take action. Stop going on vacation in Mar-a-Lago. Take action. Work with Congress."

Gun control is popular, but it's historically lacked sustained support

Congress's inaction on guns over the past few years is not due to the unpopularity of gun control measures. If you look at the polling, support for gun control, depending on which specific measure respondents are asked about, can be very high among both Democrats and Republicans.

Here, for example, are the results of surveys by the Pew Research Center, which found strong support for measures ranging from an assault weapons ban to universal background checks to restrictions on people with mental illness buying guns.

Issue intensity seems to be the key reason nothing happens anyway. As Republican strategist Grover Norquist said in 2000, "The question is intensity versus preference. You can always get a certain percentage to say they are in favor of some gun controls. But are they going to vote on their 'control' position?" Probably not, he suggested, "but for that 4-5 percent who care about guns, they will vote on this."

Other Pew surveys support Norquist's claim. Consider this first chart:

About 21 percent of gun owners have contacted a public official to express an opinion on gun policy, compared to just 12 percent of non-gun owners. And about 22 percent of people who want less strict gun laws have contacted a public official, while just 15 percent of people who support stricter laws have.

The differences are more pronounced if you look at contact in the previous 12 months. Gun owners are 80 percent more likely than non-gun owners to have contacted a public official about gun policy in the past year. And supporters of laxer gun laws are nearly 60 percent more likely than supporters of stricter gun laws to have contacted a public official over the issue in the same time span.

This difference in issue intensity also shows up in other areas. Take this second chart:

Again, the situation is skewed in favor of gun owners. About 28 percent of gun owners have contributed to an organization that takes a position on gun policy, while only 10 percent of non-gun owners have. That helps explain how a group like the National Rifle Association (NRA) has become so powerful, while there are no political equivalents - in terms of influence - on the other side.

One caveat to the charts: Based on Pew's surveys, there are way more adults in the US who believe that gun laws should be stricter (52 percent) than those who believe gun laws should be less strict (18 percent). So the side in favor of stricter gun laws can afford to have a lower percentage of its people contacting public officials.

It's demonstrative, though, to focus on the 12-month data for this. As it shows, gun owners and supporters of laxer gun laws are more likely to have recently engaged a public official or political organization on this issue. That matters: If a senator gets phone calls every few months from gun owners and opponents of stricter laws, that's going to make a bigger impression than calls from non-gun owners and supporters of stricter laws every year or so.

That's especially true if you consider political party. Republicans are much more likely to oppose stricter laws, based on Pew's data. So if a Republican senator mostly hears from GOP constituents, and these constituents are more likely to be really passionate about the issue since they are on the side that opposes stricter laws, that's going to give the senator a skewed perception of where voters are on this topic. As a result, Republican lawmakers are more resistant to calls for gun control - arguing against "politicizing" mass shootings and focusing on issues like mental health instead.

So why the difference in passion? Kristin Goss, a political scientist at Duke University and author of The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know, previously told me that it's a sense of tangible loss. Gun owners feel like the government is going to take their guns and rights.

This sentiment has been fueled by a decades-long public campaign by the NRA to convince the US public and politicians that, in fact, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms, and that more guns will actually make people safer (by letting them protect themselves), despite what the research says.

Gun control advocates, meanwhile, are motivated by more abstract notions of reducing gun violence - although, Goss noted, the victims of mass shootings and their families have begun putting a face on these policies by engaging more actively in advocacy work, which could make the gun control movement feel more relatable. That's exactly what the current protests are doing, with student survivors from Florida in particular actively participating.

Will it work? That remains to be seen.

More guns, more gun deaths

Despite Congress's dawdling, there is little question that America's abundance of guns - the country has by far the highest rate of civilian gun ownership in the world - is driving its unique gun violence problem.

The research, compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health's Injury Control Research Center, is pretty clear: After controlling for variables such as socioeconomic factors and other crime, places with more guns have more gun deaths.

"Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community leads to more homicide," David Hemenway, the Injury Control Research Center's director, wrote in Private Guns, Public Health.

This is true when you look at state-by-state data within the United States, as this chart from Mother Jones demonstrates:

And it's true when you look at the data across developed nations, as this other chart from researcher Josh Tewksbury shows:

Experts widely believe this is the consequence of America's relaxed laws and culture surrounding guns: Making more guns more accessible means more guns, and more guns mean more deaths. Researchers have found this to be true not just with homicides, but also with suicides, domestic violence, and even violence against police.

As a breakthrough analysis by UC Berkeley's Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins in 1999 found, it's not even that the US has more crime than other developed countries. This chart, from Jeffrey Swanson at Duke University, shows that the US is not an outlier when it comes to overall crime:

Instead, the US appears to have more lethal violence - and that's driven in large part by the prevalence of guns.

"A series of specific comparisons of the death rates from property crime and assault in New York City and London show how enormous differences in death risk can be explained even while general patterns are similar," Zimring and Hawkins wrote. "A preference for crimes of personal force and the willingness and ability to use guns in robbery make similar levels of property crime 54 times as deadly in New York City as in London."

This is in many ways intuitive: People of every country get into arguments and fights with friends, family, and peers. But in the US, it's much more likely that someone will get angry at an argument and be able to pull out a gun and kill someone.

Republican lawmakers tend to resist this research, instead focusing, particularly recently, on mental health as the key problem. But as Dylan Matthews explained for Vox, people with mental illnesses are more likely to be victims, not perpetrators, of violence. And Michael Stone, a psychiatrist at Columbia University who maintains a database of mass shooters, wrote in a 2015 analysis that only 52 out of the 235 killers in the database, or about 22 percent, had mental illnesses. "The mentally ill should not bear the burden of being regarded as the 'chief' perpetrators of mass murder," he concluded. Other research has backed this up.

Guns are not the only contributor to violence. (Other factors include, for example, poverty, urbanization, and alcohol consumption.) But when researchers control for other confounding variables, they have found time and time again that America's high levels of gun ownership are a major reason the US is so much worse in terms of gun violence than its developed peers.

To deal with its problem, America will have to not only make guns less accessible, but likely reduce the number of guns in the US as well.

The research also speaks to this point: A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published in Epidemiologic Reviews, found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence - a strong indicator that restricting access to guns can save lives.

The government can do something about this

Other wealthy countries have dealt with this problem, passing an array of gun control measures, from universal background checks to licensing requirements to outright bans and confiscation schemes.

In 1996, a 28-year-old man walked into a cafe in Port Arthur, Australia, ate lunch, pulled a semiautomatic rifle out of his bag, and opened fire on the crowd, killing 35 people and wounding 23 more. It was the worst mass shooting in Australia's history.

Australian lawmakers responded with legislation that, among other provisions, banned certain types of firearms, such as automatic and semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. The Australian government confiscated 650,000 of these guns through a gun buyback program, in which it purchased firearms from gun owners. It established a registry of all guns owned in the country and required a permit for all new firearm purchases. (This is much further than bills typically proposed in the US, which almost never make a serious attempt to immediately reduce the number of guns in the country.)

The result: Australia's firearm homicide rate dropped by about 42 percent in the seven years after the law passed, and its firearm suicide rate fell by 57 percent, according to a review of the evidence by Harvard researchers.

It's difficult to know for sure how much of the drop in homicides and suicides was caused specifically by the gun buyback program. Australia's gun deaths, for one, were already declining before the law passed. But researchers David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis argue that the gun buyback program very likely played a role: "First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates."

One study of the program, by Australian researchers, found that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people correlated with up to a 50 percent drop in firearm homicides and a 74 percent drop in gun suicides. As Matthews noted, the drop in homicides wasn't statistically significant because Australia already had a pretty low number of murders. But the drop in suicides most definitely was - and the results are striking.

One other fact, noted by Hemenway and Vriniotis in 2011: "While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the [Australia gun control law], resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres."

This is the kind of action the US - and specifically Congress and President Trump - could take. But they have long gotten a pass on this issue. Will this time be different?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Students are rising up against gun violence in the aftermath of the Florida shooting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This time, it may be different. That seems to be the hope after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, that killed at least 17 people and injured at least 14 others. In the days after the shooting, students and activists have called on their peers around the country to demand action.

# data[].attributes.headline
Jailed School Shooter Praises Student Activitists

# data[].attributes.subject
Jailed School Shooter Praises Student Activitists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A convicted school shooter has praised the survivors of last month's attack in Parkland, Florida, for their efforts in support of gun controls in the US.

Jon Romano, then 16, entered his New York high school in 2004 with a pump-action shotgun, but was disarmed by his principal before he could kill anyone.

In a letter to a local newspaper sent from prison, Romano labelled the students "courageous and inspiring".

Since the shooting, many of the survivors have lobbied for change.

After 17 were killed at their school, students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School have publically lobbied lawmakers for policy change. They have organised a march on Washington that will take place later this month.

One teacher was injured when Jon Romano opened fire on 9 Feb 2004 at Columbia High School in Greenbush, New York.

He was convicted of attempted murder and reckless endangerment after the incident.

Four key dates that shaped the US gun debate

One mother, two school shootings

#WhatIf hashtag used to debate gun control

US students say 'Never Again' after Florida

Romano, now 30, was responding to an interview in the Times Union newspaper with his former principal, John Sawchuk.

In the piece, Mr Sawchuk had said that he believed that "a lot of people would have been dead" if Romano had an AR-15 or another semi-automatic weapon on the day of the shooting.

That weapon has been used in several high profile US mass shootings, including at Sandy Hook Elementary School and in the Florida school attack.

Gun control advocates are calling for outlawing assault-style rifles from commercial sale.

Writing from Coxsackie Correctional Facility, Romano labelled the principal who thwarted the shooting as "a hero who I owe my life to."

"I believe the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland are courageous and inspiring for demanding action from politicians," Romano wrote.

One mother, two school shootings

Is it time for US teachers to be armed?

Why are mass shootings getting more deadly?

In the aftermath of the 14 February shooting, pressure has mounted on US politicians to act on gun control and for corporations to cut ties with the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA).

Firms including Hertz car rental, United airlines and Delta airlines have ended discounts to NRA members.

The organisation has said it will not back any gun ban, and has blamed the failure of authorities to intervene and not the availability of weapons for the shooting.

President Donald Trump has come out in support of some limited control measures, and accused lawmakers of being "petrified" of lobbyists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A convicted school shooter has praised the survivors of last month's attack in Parkland, Florida, for their efforts in support of gun controls in the US. Jon Romano, then 16, entered his New York high school in 2004 with a pump-action shotgun, but was disarmed by his principal before he could kill anyone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

Major companies with ties to the National Rifle Association suddenly shed ties to the pro-gun-rights interest group amid intense scrutiny over the Parkland, Fla., school shooting.

The breakups were swift amid a billowing cloud of scrutiny on social media, where countless users threatened to boycott companies that maintained a relationship with the NRA.

Most of the businesses had offered discounted products and services to NRA's several million members. Critics said the deals served as an attractive element of NRA membership.

The NRA blasted the companies that severed ties for "a shameful display of political and civic cowardice."

"Let it be absolutely clear. The loss of a discount will neither scare nor distract one single NRA member from our mission to stand and defend the individual freedoms that have always made America the greatest nation in the world," the group said in a statement.

More: NRA hits back at United Airlines, Delta, other companies for cutting ties

More: MetLife, rental car agencies dump NRA discounts

More: NRA-branded Visa card dropped by First National Bank of Omaha

More: Amazon, Google and Apple under pressure to remove NRA streaming channel

Under pressure to end discounts through the NRA Business Alliance, FedEx said Monday that it would not sever the relationship but that it opposed the NRA's views on assault weapons.

"FedEx is a common carrier under federal law and therefore does not and will not deny service or discriminate against any legal entity regardless of their policy positions or political views," the company said in a statement.

FedEx added that "the NRA is one of hundreds of organizations" that receive discounts and FedEx "has never set or changed rates for any of our millions of customers around the world in response to their politics, beliefs or positions on issues."

The NRA says on its website that it has "teamed up" with FedEx "to offer BIG savings" on the shipment giant's services.

The company said Monday that its views on guns "differ from those of the National Rifle Association" and it "opposes assault rifles being in the hands of civilians."

"While we strongly support the constitutional right of U.S. citizens to own firearms subject to appropriate background checks, FedEx views assault rifles and large capacity magazines as an inherent potential danger to schools, workplaces, and communities when such weapons are misused," FedEx said. "We therefore support restricting them to the military."

The company also called on lawmakers to take action "to protect schools and students from incidents such as the horrific tragedy in Florida."

While FedEx refused to cut off the NRA, other major companies are still under pressure, as well. Amazon, Google and Apple have taken heat from celebrity critics, who called for the company to stop offering an NRA video channel through streaming services.
Here's the list of companies that have dropped NRA deals:
*Delta Air Lines: The company axed discounted rates for NRA members.

*United Airlines: United ended an offer of discounted flights for NRA members traveling to their annual meeting.

*Enterprise Holdings: The parent company of car rental brands Enterprise, Alamo and National is ending discount deals with the NRA within a few weeks.

*Hertz: Like Enterprise, car rental company Hertz is ending discounts to NRA members.

*Avis and Budget: The company that owns the Avis and Budget rental car firms also plans to end discounts for NRA members.

*Symantec: The cybersecurity company's LifeLock identity theft protection service for businesses and its Norton anti-virus software had both offered discounts to NRA members. Those deals are off.

*TrueCar: The online car-buying service is ending its deal for NRA members, who previously saved an average of nearly $3,400 off the retail price of new and used vehicles.

*MetLife: The insurer had offered discounts to NRA members on auto and home policies before axing the deal.

*SimpliSafe: The home security company had offered a special promotion to NRA members, but that ended Friday.

*First National Bank of Omaha: The financial institution cut an NRA-branded Visa credit card.
Follow USA TODAY reporter Nathan Bomey on Twitter @NathanBomey.
Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2oz1P9n

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NRA fallout: See the list of companies that cut discounts for NRA members after Parkland, Florida school shooting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE Major companies with ties to the National Rifle Association suddenly shed ties to the pro-gun-rights interest group amid intense scrutiny over the Parkland, Fla., school shooting. The breakups were swift amid a billowing cloud of scrutiny on social media, where countless users threatened to boycott companies that maintained a relationship with the NRA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After Adam Lanza burst into Sandy Hook Elementary School and gunned down 20 students and six educators, Connecticut's Office of the Child Advocate tapped Julian Ford to help make sense of the shooting. A professor of psychiatry at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine and a practicing psychologist for 35 years, Ford served on an expert panel that conducted a detailed review of Lanza's brief life to look for "any warning signs, red flags, or other lessons that could be learned."

The resulting report painted a picture of an odd, sensitive child with significant communication difficulties who became an anxious and withdrawn adolescent. By the time he became a young adult, he was depressed and profoundly isolated, connecting only with his mother, online games and websites that trafficked in extreme violence.

At every turn, the report saw missed opportunities to treat Lanza's multiple interpersonal and mental health difficulties - he had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and severe anxiety - and to draw him out of his profound isolation. After years of having fallen through the cracks, Lanza's shooting rampage on Dec. 14, 2012, underscores the need to "identify and assess youth from a very young age, the importance of effective mental health and educational service delivery, and the necessity of cross-system communication amongst professionals charged with the care of children," the report concluded.

Ford spoke with the Los Angeles Times about the emerging picture of Nikolas Cruz, the confessed gunman who shot and killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Feb. 14 and his similarities to Lanza.

What parallels do you see between Nikolas Cruz and Adam Lanza?

Each case and each individual is unique, of course. But what struck me is both were extremely isolated young men who didn't feel they fit in, and felt a profound sense of alienation from virtually all human relationships.

That kind of isolation - that sense of not fitting in with a peer group - in no way accounts for an act of violence. But it is very seriously problematic. As that isolated young child becomes a young adult, he is not going to be able to recognize the impact of actions he might take or understand how they might hurt others - from words or small gestures to large, much more consequential actions.

Cruz is reported to have put a swastika on his backpack, a gesture his mother said he did not understand. Lanza was judged by a Yale psychiatrist to require intensive help "using communication that is appropriate to setting, listener, context, or purpose."

In both cases, this is about not getting other people's perspectives and the fact they might see things differently. That includes not understanding that their actions or the symbols they wield might be hurtful.

One issue for both these young men seems to be a kind of emotional numbness. We certainly associate that with several psychiatric disorders, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. But it can happen to people who simply are not really tuned into their own or other peoples' emotions.

Emotional literacy or intelligence is really very crucial for young adults. They have to be able to recognize that other people can feel injured, can have other perspectives, even when they don't feel it's warranted. That perspective-taking, or empathy, is lacking in Cruz or Lanza. It's a very serious psychological and emotional impairment.

Students and their family members join hands outside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School n Parkland, Fla. Matt McClain / Washington Post

The common denominator is the detachment, the isolation, the emotional disconnection. That's a challenge for every teen transitioning into adulthood, and most kids make that successfully because they're either able to figure out for themselves or they have adults in their lives who can help them learn to connect. But some parents or caregivers, even thoughtful and caring ones, don't know what to do to help a child to fit in. We really, as a society, need to think carefully about how we help parents in that predicament.

What role does the online world play in that process?

It's a blessing and a curse.

Online media provides a wealth of opportunities to interact and connect. But they do not provide the basis for personal relationships. Most adolescents and young adults come to recognize there's a fundamental difference between going online and actually having a close personal relationship. But for kids who are not fitting in, that's a very attractive alternative: You can hide or disguise who you are and what you're thinking.

Adam Lanza became drawn into online communities that were very toxic. He appeared to be trying to substitute those virtual interactions for actual personal connections.

While we're still learning about the situation with Nikolas Cruz, it's quite possible that he, too, was trying to find some sense of personal connection through social media, but instead found encouragement for hate and even violence.

Both kids appear to have had identifiable mental health problems. How is it that they seemed to fall through every crack?

We all need to think about what are we asking of the mental health system. The mandate to providers is to help individuals and families when they're having acute psychological problems, and to help individuals with more long-term persistent problems - such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or chronic severe depression - to maximize their quality of life and their safety.

But in between those acute crises and chronic psychiatric disorders, there are many individuals who go through their childhood and adolescence feeling disconnected from person-to-person relationships, or essentially have no meaningful personal relationships. Conventional mental health treatment is really not designed to address this.

There's this big gap, and that crack is where these young men seem to have fallen through.

It sounds like there could be a lot more kids like them.

There are a lot of people like them who are suffering and need help. They may be recognized as having problems, as was the case with both Lanza and Cruz, but are able to maintain just enough of the appearance of fitting in to be viewed as needing social or educational accommodations, but not therapeutic help. Their parents often make heroic attempts to help them "get by," while either not recognizing the severity of their child's problems (as appeared to be the case with Mrs. Lanza) or feeling helpless and becoming detached emotionally from their child (as appeared to be the case with Mr. Lanza).

Although these young adults often are described as having a personality disorder, in most cases this is not fundamentally a problem of personality, but of social communication, emotion regulation, information processing, decision-making and problem-solving. Their personalities have not fully formed as a result of those difficulties. Other people tend to feel uncomfortable and unable to connect with them. That results in a vicious cycle in which their difficulties push away the very people from whom they need connection.

The mental health system is not really funded or mandated to help people who are profoundly disconnected but essentially not intensely symptomatic. So they're easily missed.

Still, they are struggling, and the people in their lives often don't know how to get them on track. They tend to be the wheel that's not squeaky enough. And in very rare cases, the outcome is violence.

Cruz's public defender described him as a "broken human being." Do you see Cruz and Lanza as broken?

When people struggle because they do not relate to other people, or when people find them difficult to get along with, those individuals typically get labeled as "broken" - or technically, with having personality disorders. I don't think it's helpful. It's very stigmatizing. It leads others to conclude they have a disorder they can never recover from.

The common denominator is not that they have a broken personality, but they have been unable to master how to relate to other people, especially when other people do things they don't understand or find hurtful. And that's a person who's likely to be viewed as odd and shunned or bullied, and as a result to withdraw or occasionally to lash out.

Both of these young men relied on their mothers to buffer them from the world. But Lanza's mother was considering a move that would have taken him away from his childhood home, and Cruz's mother died in November. How might loss, or the prospect of it, affect troubled young adults?

There is a definite parallel here. Both of these young men had very important relationships with their mothers. When their mothers were no longer present or were less able to provide the kind of balance and support both young men clearly needed, their connection to the rest of society - to other human beings - is frayed or even lost.

It's not all about mothers. It can be a father, a teacher, a coach. But if there's only one relationship, and that relationship has to fulfill all those needs, that puts a kid at risk. No caregiver can alone be the connector to the rest of humanity, and no caregiving relationship can last forever.

Had you known much of what you learned about Lanza, could you have predicted he was capable of such violence?

I absolutely would not have predicted he'd have been capable of such extreme violence, and people who knew him well and who have studied prediction of violence much more than I have say there was no way they could have predicted it.

What we could predict is that he was going to struggle with conflict and isolation and withdrawal. And that as that struggle became more profound and exhausting, he would break down in some way.

So what could have been done differently?

One thing that increases the likelihood an Adam Lanza or a Nikolas Cruz will act on violent impulses is access to weapons that make that possible. And secondarily, involvement in groups - whether on the internet or any other forum - that strongly endorse violence as a solution to problems.

Mourners hold candles as they attend a community vigil at Newtown High School in Connecticut for the victims of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Drew Angerer / Getty Images

When you have the combination of those two things, in a person who's confused, who has difficulty feeling empathy toward others, and who feels hurt and aggrieved by others, that individual may then decide the solution is to be the person who has the power, and be the one who takes action. He may conclude that violence is the only solution.

Fortunately, in most cases, people who have come to that extreme juncture don't have the access to weapons, or there are people or institutions that intervene to help them.

But unfortunately, it's impossible for any of us to predict who is going to go from being troubled and isolated to actually harming others.

It must be very humbling.

It is. It really means we can't rely on prediction and identifying the bad guys. Because we'll misidentify some who aren't bad guys, and we'll fail to identify others who may become bad guys.

We have to shift from a strategy of trying to find the bad guys and neutralize them to a framework of identifying what the core dilemma is, and what we can do on behalf of the many, many individuals who grow up with only a tenuous connection to other people and find themselves confused by and disconnected from their own emotions. Most of these people will never be violent. But they deserve and require some additional assistance beyond that which is now available.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity. melissa.healy@latimes.com Twitter: @LATMelissaHealy MORE IN SCIENCE: More than half of U.S. gun owners store at least one firearm without any locks, survey reveals Case closed: Oldest known cave art proves Neanderthals were just as sophisticated as humans An amateur astronomer testing a new camera happens to catch a supernova as it's being born

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What the Florida school shooting reveals about the gaps in our mental health system

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After Adam Lanza burst into Sandy Hook Elementary School and gunned down 20 students and six educators, Connecticut's Office of the Child Advocate tapped Julian Ford to help make sense of the shooting.

# data[].attributes.headline
Armed Officer Stayed Outside During Florida Shooting

# data[].attributes.subject
Armed Officer Stayed Outside During Florida Shooting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
florida school shooting: school resource deputy stayed outside - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Armed school resource officer stayed outside as Florida shooting unfolded, sheriff says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The school resource deputy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, waited outside the school building as the shooting unfolded last week, officials said.

# data[].attributes.headline
Deputy Who Didn't Enter School During Shooting is Not "A Coward"

# data[].attributes.subject
Deputy Who Didn't Enter School During Shooting is Not "A Coward"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Florida deputy who resigned after it emerged he didn't enter Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School during the mass shooting on Valentine's Day is not "a coward" and acted appropriately, his lawyer said in a statement Monday.

Broward Deputy Scot Peterson has been heavily criticized for failing to enter the school and confront the gunman, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, during the rampage that left 17 people dead.

Peterson had been assigned to guard the school, and his actions -- or lack of them -- were even lambasted by President Trump, who called Peterson "a coward" last week. Trump on Monday again slammed Peterson and other o fficers who allegedly did not enter the school, saying "the way they performed was frankly disgusting."

Peterson's lawyer Joseph DiRuzzo said in a news release obtained by Fox News the one-time school resource officer of the year didn't go inside the high school because he believed the shooting was happening outside the building.

"Let there be no mistake, Mr. Peterson wishes that he could have prevented the untimely passing of the seventeen victims on that day, and his heart goes out to the families of the victims in their time of need," according to the statement. "However, the allegations that Mr. Peterson was a coward and that his performance, under the circumstances, failed to meet the standards of police officers are patently untrue."
SHERIFF SCOTT ISRAEL BATTLING CALLS TO RESIGN AS BLAME SHIFTS IN WAKE OF FLORIDA HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTING
DiRuzzo said Peterson is confident he followed procedures and will be exonerated.

Peterson contends he took up a position outside Building 12 at the school after rushing over to respond to a report of firecrackers, "and not gunfire."

"The allegations that Mr. Peterson was a coward and that his performance, under the circumstances, failed to meet the standards of police officers are patently untrue."
- Joseph DiRuzzo, Scot Peterson's lawyer

Once he got to the building, Peterson said he "heard gunshots but believed that those gunshots were originating from outside of any of the buildings on the school campus."

"BSO trains its officers that in the event of outdoor gunfire one is to seek cover and assess the situation in order to communicate what one observes with other law enforcement," the statement said.

He said he was the first Broward deputy to dispatch on police radio shots were being fired, and he told a first-arriving Coral Springs officer he "thought that the shots were coming from outside." That arriving officer then took up a tactical position behind a tree with his rifle.

"Radio transmissions indicated that there were a gunshot victim in the area of the football field, which served to confirm Mr. Peterson's belief that the shooter, or shooters, were outside," according to the statement.
SEVERAL BROWARD DEPUTIES WAITED OUTSIDE DURING FLORIDA SCHOOL SHOOTING, REPORT SAYS
He also said he "had the presence of mind" to have school officials review cameras at the facility "to locate the shooter" and obtain a description for law enforcement.

Peterson resigned last week after Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel accused him of failing to confront the shooter.

His lawyer blasted Israel for his criticism of the officer, adding that judgment should be withheld until the investigation into the school shooting is complete.

"It is our understanding that Sheriff Israel acknowledged that the investigation remains on-going and that '[i]nvestigations will not be rushed or asked to jump to conclusions.' But this is exactly what Sheriff Israel did, he jumped to a conclusion regarding Mr. Peterson's performance on February 14th even though Israel claims that '[i]t is more important for us to wait and let the investigators get it right[.]' We question why this statement would not also apply to Mr. Peterson?" the statement said.

Some politicians have said Israel needs to step down because his office ignored repeated warnings about Cruz.

On Sunday in an interview with CNN, Israel slammed a letter from State Rep. Bill Hager to Florida Gov. Scott, which called for his removal on the basis of inaction after at least 23 -- and perhaps almost 50 -- police visits to the shooter's home and the reports of his officers standing idle.

Israel said the demand was a "shameful, politically motivated letter that had no facts."
Fox News' Greg Norman, and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Travis Fedschun is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @travfed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Florida deputy who didn't enter school during mass shooting is not 'a coward,' lawyer says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Florida deputy who resigned after it emerged he didn't enter Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School during the mass shooting on Valentine's Day is not "a coward" and acted appropriately, his lawyer said in a statement Monday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Renewing Call To Arm Teachers, Trump Tells Governors The NRA Is ‘On Our Side’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The president also criticized law enforcement for not doing enough to prevent the high school shooting in Parkland, Fla., and suggested he would have been more aggressive in engaging the gunman.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
America is an exceptional country when it comes to guns. It's one of the few countries in which the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. But America's relationship with guns is unique in another crucial way: Among developed nations, the US is far and away the most homicidal - in large part due to the easy access many Americans have to firearms. These maps and charts show what that violence looks like compared with the rest of the world, why it happens, and why it's such a tough problem to fix.

1) America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada, and nearly 16 times as many as Germany

This chart, compiled using United Nations data collected by Simon Rogers for the Guardian, shows that America far and away leads other developed countries when it comes to gun-related homicides. Why? Extensive reviews of the research, compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health's Injury Control Research Center, suggest the answer is pretty simple: The US is an outlier on gun violence because it has way more guns than other developed nations.

2) America has 4.4 percent of the world's population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world

3) There have been more than 1,600 mass shootings since Sandy Hook

In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself. Since then, there have been more than 1,600 mass shootings.

The number comes from the Gun Violence Archive, which hosts a database that has tracked mass shootings since 2013. But since some shootings go unreported, the database is likely missing some, as well as the details of some of the events.

The tracker uses a fairly broad definition of "mass shooting": It includes not just shootings in which four or more people were murdered, but shootings in which four or more people were shot at all (excluding the shooter).

Even under this broad definition, it's worth noting that mass shootings make up a tiny portion of America's firearm deaths, which totaled nearly 39,000 in 2016 alone.

4) On average, there is around one mass shooting for each day in America

Whenever a mass shooting occurs, supporters of gun rights often argue that it's inappropriate to bring up political debates about gun control in the aftermath of a tragedy. For example, former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a strong supporter of gun rights, criticized former President Barack Obama for "trying to score cheap political points" when Obama mentioned gun control after a mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina.

But if this argument is followed to its logical end, then it will just about never be the right time to discuss gun control, as Christopher Ingraham pointed out at the Washington Post. Under the broader definition of mass shootings, America has around one mass shooting a day. So if lawmakers are forced to wait for a time when there isn't a mass shooting to talk gun control, they could find themselves waiting for a very long time.

5) States with more guns have more gun deaths

Using data from a study in Injury Prevention and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mother Jones put together the chart above that shows states with more guns tend to have far more gun deaths, including homicides and suicides. This has been found across the empirical research: "Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community leads to more homicide," David Hemenway, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center's director, wrote in Private Guns, Public Health.

Read more in Mother Jones's "10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down."

6) It's not just the US: Developed countries with more guns also have more gun deaths

7) America is an outlier when it comes to gun deaths, but not overall crime

It would be one thing if the US happened to have more crime than other nations, but the existing data shows that not to be the case. America is only an outlier when it comes to homicides and, specifically, gun violence, according to data from Jeffrey Swanson at Duke University.

As Zack Beauchamp explained for Vox, a breakthrough analysis in the 1990s by UC Berkeley's Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins found that the US does not, contrary to the old conventional wisdom, have more crime in general than other Western industrial nations. Instead, the US appears to have more lethal violence - and that's driven in large part by the prevalence of guns.

"A series of specific comparisons of the death rates from property crime and assault in New York City and London show how enormous differences in death risk can be explained even while general patterns are similar," Zimring and Hawkins wrote. "A preference for crimes of personal force and the willingness and ability to use guns in robbery make similar levels of property crime 54 times as deadly in New York City as in London."

This is in many ways intuitive: People of every country get into arguments and fights with friends, family, and peers. But in the US, it's much more likely that someone will get angry at an argument and be able to pull out a gun and kill someone.

8) States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths

When economist Richard Florida took a look at gun deaths and other social indicators, he found that higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness didn't correlate with more gun deaths. But he did find one telling correlation: States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths. (Read more at Florida's "The Geography of Gun Deaths.")

This is backed by other research: A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published in Epidemiologic Reviews, found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence - a strong indicator that restricting access to guns can save lives.

9) Still, gun homicides (like all homicides) have declined over the past couple decades

The good news is that firearm homicides, like all homicides and crime, have declined over the past two decades. (Although that may have changed in 2015 and 2016, with a recent rise in murders nationwide.)

There's still a lot of debate among criminal justice experts about why this crime drop is occurring. Some of the most credible ideas include mass incarceration, more and better policing, and reduced lead exposure from gasoline. But one theory that researchers have widely debunked is the idea that more guns have deterred crime - in fact, the opposite may be true, based on research compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health's Injury Control Center.

10) Most gun deaths are suicides

Although America's political debate about guns tends to focus on grisly mass shootings and murders, a majority of gun-related deaths in the US are suicides. As Dylan Matthews explained for Vox, this is actually one of the most compelling reasons for reducing access to guns: There is a lot of research that shows greater access to guns dramatically increases the risk of suicide.

11) The states with the most guns report the most suicides

12) Guns allow people to kill themselves much more easily

Perhaps the reason access to guns so strongly contributes to suicides is that guns are much deadlier than alternatives like cutting and poison.

Jill Harkavy-Friedman, vice president of research for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, previously explained that this is why reducing access to guns can be so important to preventing suicides: Just stalling an attempt or making it less likely to result in death makes a huge difference.

"Time is really key to preventing suicide in a suicidal person," Harkavy-Friedman said. "First, the crisis won't last, so it will seem less dire and less hopeless with time. Second, it opens the opportunity for someone to help or for the suicidal person to reach out to someone to help. That's why limiting access to lethal means is so powerful."

She added, "[I]f we keep the method of suicide away from a person when they consider it, in that moment they will not switch to another method. It doesn't mean they never will. But in that moment, their thinking is very inflexible and rigid. So it's not like they say, 'Oh, this isn't going to work. I'm going to try something else.' They generally can't adjust their thinking, and they don't switch methods."

13) Policies that limit access to guns have decreased suicides

When countries reduced access to guns, they saw a drop in the number of firearm suicides. The data above, taken from a study by Australian researchers, shows that suicides dropped dramatically after the Australian government set up a mandatory gun buyback program that reduced the number of firearms in the country by about one-fifth.

The Australian study found that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people correlated with up to a 50 percent drop in firearm homicides and a 74 percent drop in gun suicides. As Dylan Matthews explained for Vox, the drop in homicides wasn't statistically significant (in large part because murders in Australia were already so low). But the drop in suicides most definitely was - and the results are striking.

Australia is far from alone in these types of results. A study from Israeli researchers found that suicides among Israeli soldiers dropped by 40 percent when the military stopped letting soldiers take their guns home over the weekend. The change was most pronounced during the weekends.

This data and research have a clear message: States and countries can significantly reduce the number of suicides by restricting access to guns.

14) In states with more guns, more police officers are also killed on duty

Given that states with more guns tend to have more homicides, it isn't too surprising that, as a study in the American Journal of Public Health found, states with more guns also have more cops die in the line of duty.

Researchers looked at federal data for firearm ownership and homicides of police officers across the US over 15 years. They found that states with more gun ownership had more cops killed in homicides: Every 10 percent increase in firearm ownership correlated with 10 additional officers killed in homicides over the 15-year study period.

The findings could help explain why US police officers appear to kill more people than cops in other developed countries. For US police officers, the higher rates of guns and gun violence - even against them - in America mean that they not only will encounter more guns and violence, but they can expect to encounter more guns and deadly violence, making them more likely to anticipate and perceive a threat and use deadly force as a result.

15) Support for gun ownership has sharply increased since the early 2000s

Over the past two decades, Americans have shifted from mostly supporting the concept of gun control to greater support for protecting "the right of Americans to own guns," according to Pew Research Center surveys. This shift has happened even as major mass shootings, such as the attacks on Columbine High School and Sandy Hook Elementary School, have received more press attention.

16) High-profile shootings don't appear to lead to more support for gun control in the long term

Although mass shootings are often viewed as some of the worst acts of gun violence, they seem to have little effect on public opinion about gun rights, based on surveys from the Pew Research Center. That helps explain why Americans' support for the right to own guns appears to have risen over the past few decades even as more mass shootings made the news.

17) Specific gun control policies are fairly popular

Although most Americans say they want to protect the right to own firearms, most also back many gun control proposals - such as stronger background checks, a database to track gun sales, and banning assault-style weapons, according to Pew Research Center surveys.

This type of contradiction isn't exclusive to gun policy issues. For example, although most Americans in the past said they don't like Obamacare, most of them also said they like the specific policies in the health care law. Americans just don't like some policy ideas until you get specific.

For people who believe the empirical evidence that more guns mean more violence, this contradiction is the source of a lot of frustration. Americans by and large support policies that reduce access to guns. But once these policies are proposed, they're broadly spun by politicians and pundits into attempts to "take away your guns." So nothing gets done, and preventable deaths keep occurring.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
America's unique gun violence problem, explained in 17 maps and charts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
America is an exceptional country when it comes to guns. It's one of the few countries in which the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected.

# data[].attributes.headline
U.S. Gun Violence: The story in graphics

# data[].attributes.subject
U.S. Gun Violence: The story in graphics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mass shootings, and calls for gun control. They're familiar refrains in the news, prompting debates on the right to bear arms and government efforts to limit access to guns in the name of public safety.

Here's a look at guns and gun violence in charts and graphics:

The U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country

Civilians in the United States own about 270 million guns, according to a 2007 report by the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey. That's slightly more than the population of Indonesia, the world's fourth most-populated country. America ranks No. 1 in firearms per capita.

And demand for guns is on the rise

According to the FBI, 2015 was a record year for background checks on guns. Some have pointed out the requests for background checks have gone up after mass shootings, the idea being that shootings cause people to worry about their safety and buy a gun to protect themselves. The month after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, for example, saw a surge in requests for background checks. The terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, had a similar effect.

Even though the homicide rate has fallen sharply in the last 50 years

The intense public focus on mass shootings and other killings belies a larger trend: The homicide rate has fallen sharply in the United States. The homicide rates for 2013 and 2014 were the lowest in more than 50 years. Firearms are used in roughly 7 in 10 killings, the FBI says.

Handguns are the weapons used most often in homicides

After many shootings, the focus immediately shifts toward restricting the use of AR-15s or other semiautomatic rifles. But statistics show that most murders in the United States are not a part of mass shootings, and handguns are the most common weapon.

Gun violence kills far more Americans than terrorism

During his presidency, Barack Obama has had to deliver statements on gun violence regularly. After a shooting at Oregon's Umpqua Community College in October, he asked news organizations to tally up the number of Americans killed by terrorist attacks in the last decade and compare it with the number of Americans who have died in gun violence.

Most U.S. gun deaths are suicides

Of the more than 400,000 people who died as a result of gun violence from 2001 to 2013, about three in five were from suicide. Just under two in five - or about 156,000 people - died of homicide.

Seven in 10 active shootings are in schools, businesses

Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut; a conference center in San Bernardino, California, where a holiday party was taking place; Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina - these are some of the more public places that have seen major mass shootings.

Shooter incidents: Most take own life

The FBI studied 160 specific types of active-shooter incidents between 2000 and 2013. The study doesn't encompass all shootings, but gives insight into how some situations could end. Unlike a homicide or mass killing, the "active" aspect implies that both law enforcement and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses.

This story first published on December 4, 2015. It has been updated to add additional graphics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
international relations and national security

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. gun violence: The story in charts and graphs | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mass shootings, and calls for gun control. They're familiar refrains in the news, prompting debates on the right to bear arms and government efforts to limit access to guns in the name of public safety.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
February 5, 2018

Everytown is committed to using the most comprehensive, up-to-date sources of data to measure America's unprecedented levels of gun violence. Learn more by exploring the stats below.

To calculate this, Everytown relies on a five-year-average of data from the CDC, whose National Vital Statistics System contains the most comprehensive national data, currently available through 2016."Fatal Injury Reports," Injury Prevention & Control: Data & Statistics (WISQARS), accessed December 23, 2017 http://1.usa.gov/1plXBux']

Rates of firearm injury death increase rapidly after age 12. And unintentional shootings of children and teens are underreported in the CDC data, possibly because of the difficulty of characterizing a child's intent after he or she has killed himself or a playmate with a firearm. "Fatal Injury Reports," Injury Prevention & Control: Data & Statistics (WISQARS), accessed December 23, 2017 Everytown tracks unintentional shootings involving children, which occur every 34 hours, on average. http://1.usa.gov/1plXBux']

According to a study by the Department of Justice, between 1994 and 2014, federal, state, and local agencies conducted background checks on more than 180 million firearm applications and denied 2.82 million gun sales to prohibited purchasers. To date, the background check system has blocked over 3 million firearm sales to prohibited purchasers.Karberg JC, Frandsen RJ, Durso JM, et al. "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2013-2014." Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://bit.ly/2lSEIEu. Published June 2016. Accessed February 15, 2017. Data for 2015 and 2016 were obtained by Everytown from the FBI directly. Though majority of the transactions and denials reported by FBI and BJS are associated with a firearm sale or transfer, a small number may be for concealed carry permits and other reasons not related to a sale or transfer.

Black Americans make up 14 percent of the U.S. population U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf but are victims of more than half of all gun homicides."Fatal Injury Reports," Injury Prevention & Control: Data & Statistics (WISQARS), accessed December 23, 2017, http://1.usa.gov/1plXBux.

A case-control study of 11 cities found that in a domestic violence situation, the perpetrator's access to a gun increased the odds of femicide by more than five times (adjust OR=5.44, 95% CI = 2.89, 10.22).Jacqueline C. Campbell, Daniel Webster, and Jane Koziol-McLain, "Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multisite Case Control Study," American Journal of Public Health 93, no. 7 (June 2003): http://1.usa.gov/1osjCet.

Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the FBI collect data on firearm homicides - the former from medical examiners and the latter from local law enforcement. Each data set has distinct advantages and flaws. The CDC's National Vital Statistics System records a higher percentage of all firearm deaths but fails to capture details about their circumstances, including the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim. This makes it unsuitable for measuring gun violence between people of certain relationships.

In contrast, the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) include details on the perpetrator and weapon but are more likely to be missing records because the FBI relies on police departments to voluntarily submit their homicide data on an annual basis. Despite these gaps, SHR data are utilized widely in the criminology community. The SHR do not include data from the state of Florida. Everytown obtained data directly from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Women killed by former dating partners (as opposed to current dating partners) are not categorized in the Florida data and are not included.James Alan Fox, "Missing Data Problems in the SHR: Imputing Offender and Relationship Characteristics," Homicide Studies 8, no. 214 (2004); and Catherine Barber and David Hemenway, "Underestimates of Unintentional Firearm Fatalities: Comparing Supplementary Homicide Report Data with the National Vital Statistics System," Injury Prevention 8 (2002).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
February 5, 2018 Everytown is committed to using the most comprehensive, up-to-date sources of data to measure America's unprecedented levels of gun violence. Learn more by exploring the stats below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

Fueled by anguished voices in the aftermath of the Florida high school shooting, Oregon's Legislature on Thursday banned people convicted of stalking and domestic violence or under restraining orders from buying or owning firearms and ammunition.

The passage of the bill by the state Senate on a 16-13 vote appears to mark the first time a state legislature has passed a gun-control measure since the Feb. 14 shooting in Parkland, Florida, said Anne S. Teigen, a criminal justice expert with the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown had lobbied for the bill, telling a Senate committee this week to hear the anguished voices rising in the aftermath of the Florida attack in which 17 people were killed. The Democratic governor said she intends to sign into law the measure that the House earlier approved to protect victims of domestic violence.

Passage of the bill comes as the nation heatedly debates gun control in the wake of the Florida shooting

A group led by former Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who survived a 2011 shooting that left her with a brain injury, applauded the Legislature's passing of the so-called boyfriend loophole bill.

"Oregon is taking the lead to protect communities from gun violence," said Robin Lloyd, government affairs director for Giffords' nonprofit organization that seeks to save lives from gun violence.

Brown praised lawmakers after the bill passed both chambers, observing that "it took the voices and outrage of youth devastated by gun violence to hold decision makers' feet to the fire."

The House had approved the bill in a 37-23 vote on Feb. 15, with two Republicans including gubernatorial candidate Knute Buehler joining Democrats in voting "aye."

"I think survivors of domestic violence shouldn't have to live in fear that their abusers can obtain a firearm," Buehler had said.

Before Thursday's vote, Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Democrat from the university town of Eugene, stood and urged his colleagues to support the bill. His voice cracking, he recalled that his sister was shot dead by her boyfriend in 1973 after she said she was leaving him. He cited statistics saying a woman is five times more likely to die if a gun present in domestic violence situation and 54 percent of mass shootings involve domestic violence.

Opponents said the law would violate Second Amendment protections on the right to bear arms. Unlawful possession of guns and ammunition is punishable by a maximum of 364 days' imprisonment, a $6,250 fine, or both.

One Democrat split from the rest of her caucus and joined the Republican senators in voting against the measure. Republicans said the bill could have been better crafted and that it was too complicated an issue to consider in the short 2018 legislative session.

The bill expands those who could be banned from owning guns and ammunition after a conviction, adding stalking as a qualifying crime, and adding those who are under a restraining order. Supporters said the bill closed a loophole in a 2015 law that excluded some abusers, such as boyfriends who abuse partners they don't live with.

An amendment proposed by Sen. Herman Baertschiger, a Republican from Grants Pass, to appropriate $20 million to the state police for implementing and enforcing firearms laws was voted down on Thursday by the Senate.

"Senate Democrats rejected additional funding to the state police," said Senator Republican Leader Jackie Winters. "With additional funding, the state police would be freed up to enforce drug laws, gun laws, and increase public safety."

Gov. Kate Brown is proposing an end to the so-called boyfriend loophole, which would prohibit individuals convicted of misdemeanor stalking or domestic violence from buying a gun.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2GChjB0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oregon lawmakers pass gun-control bill; first since Florida shooting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE Fueled by anguished voices in the aftermath of the Florida high school shooting, Oregon's Legislature on Thursday banned people convicted of stalking and domestic violence or under restraining orders from buying or owning firearms and ammunition.

# data[].attributes.headline
Authorities Missed Warning Signs About School Shooter

# data[].attributes.subject
Authorities Missed Warning Signs About School Shooter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Broward County Sheriff's Office is increasingly under scrutiny over its handling of last week's shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 people dead.

An armed officer was already on campus when the gunfire broke out but never encountered the shooter, the sheriff says.

Local authorities are also said to have had multiple run-ins with Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old former student charged in the shooting, in recent years.

A spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association chastised the Broward County sheriff for not using Florida's so-called Baker Act to commit Cruz to a mental-health institution, which might have prevented him from buying a firearm under state law.

Local authorities are facing mounting questions over their response to last week's mass shooting at a Florida high school and their previous encounters with Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old former student they've charged.

Though the FBI has attracted the bulk of the criticism since it acknowledged last week that it failed to follow up on a tip it received in January about Cruz, the Broward County Sheriff's Office has also come under some scrutiny.

Among the details to emerge after the shooting:

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel announced Wednesday that his deputies would begin carrying rifles on school grounds. But though his department already had an armed officer on the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High school campus during the shooting, the officer never encountered the gunman.

"The response and actions of Deputy Peterson will be looked at and scrutinized, as will everyone's," Israel said Wednesday at a news conference.

"Where was the only guy with a gun when this happened?" Karen Dietrich, a Fort Lauderdale police officer whose two sons survived the shooting, told The New York Times. "I realize it's a large campus, and he may have been on the other side, I don't know. But it would not take six minutes on a full run to get from one end to the other."

Authorities have said Cruz fired his AR-15 for roughly seven minutes before ditching the weapon to blend in with a crowd of fleeing students.

The Times reported that first responders were unsure where the gunman was for at least 30 minutes after the gunfire broke out and that police took an additional 15 minutes to identify him.

Al Lamberti, a former Broward County sheriff, told The Times that mass shootings were "all pretty much the same in that it's over in three to five minutes."

"We have to learn from this, just like we did from the others," he said.

'We have to follow up on these red flags'

Local authorities have also faced questions about their previous encounters with Cruz and why they never arrested or involuntarily committed him to mental-health facilities.

Florida's mental-health law, known as the Baker Act, allows the state to hospitalize people it deems a threat to themselves or others and may prohibit them from buying a gun under state law.

Though a Florida social-services agency said in a report that it had previously been contacted to detain Cruz under the Baker Act, it determined he wasn't a threat, The Times reported.

Dana Loesch, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, clashed with Israel on the subject during a CNN town-hall meeting on Wednesday, seizing on reports that his office visited Cruz's home 39 times over seven years and never arrested or committed him.

"Sending messages, telling other students that he was going to murder them and he was going to kill him I would think certainly would qualify under a Florida state statute for you to have Baker Acted him," Loesch said.

There have been numerous reports citing Cruz's former classmates and neighbors as saying he had a history of disturbing behavior, including boasting about his guns, selling knives at school, getting in fights, and killing animals.

"Look, I'm not saying that you can be everywhere at once, but this is what I'm talking about," Loesch said. "We have to follow up on these red flags."

Israel pushed back.

"First of all, we've talked about the Broward Sheriff's Office and some other local agencies and the FBI getting tips and what have you," Israel said. "America, there's one person responsible for this act: that's the detestable, violent killer. He is responsible for this act, nobody else but him."

Israel told Loesch it was incorrect that police had visited Cruz 39 times, but he said his office was investigating previous run-ins with Cruz and would act if any officers are found to have breached protocols.

"We are looking at every single case we got; we are following up on it," he said. "We will decide and discern what deputies did, what investigators did, and we will - I will - handle it accordingly, and people will be punished if they didn't do what they were supposed to do."

Gun threats and more 911 calls

The Broward County Sheriff's Office wasn't the only law-enforcement agency that encountered Cruz.

Authorities in Palm Beach, about an hour from Parkland, responded to an incident involving Cruz shortly after his mother died in November, CNN reported on Thursday.

Cruz and his brother, Zachary, had recently moved in with a former neighbor named Rocxanne Deschamps.

Citing a dispatcher's notes, CNN reported that Deschamps' 22-year-old son, Rock, called 911 shortly after Thanksgiving to report that an "adopted 19-year-old son" may have hidden a "gun in the backyard," even though weapons were banned in the household.

According to CNN, another report said that Rock Deschamps and Nikolas Cruz fought several days later and that Cruz told the Deschampses he had "bought tons of ammo," had "used a gun against ppl before," and "was going to get his gun and come back."

The report also said the deputy who responded to the incident spoke with both men, who "hugged and reconciled their differences," and that Cruz apologized for "losing his temper."

According to CNN, Rock Deschamps signed a form saying he refused to press charges, telling the deputy that he felt bad for Cruz because his mother died and that he didn't want him to go to jail, just to leave the home to calm down.

Shortly afterward, Cruz moved in with Kimberly and James Snead in Broward County and brought his guns with him, CNN reported.

The Sneads have said in multiple interviews with news outlets that they saw few warning signs that Cruz would become violent and that they forced him to lock up his firearms in a safe.

They said they believed they held the only key, but Cruz somehow had another one.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Authorities missed dozens of warning signs about the Florida shooting suspect before the massacre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Broward County Sheriff's Office is increasingly under scrutiny over its handling of last week's shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 people dead. An armed officer was already on campus when the gunfire broke out but never encountered the shooter, the sheriff says.

# data[].attributes.headline
Stoneman Students Question Lawmakers and NRA

# data[].attributes.subject
Stoneman Students Question Lawmakers and NRA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Survivors of the massacre at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, took center stage at a CNN town hall Wednesday in Sunrise, Florida. The students, their parents and teachers asked frank questions of Sens. Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson, Rep. Ted Deutch, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel and National Rifle Association spokeswoman Dana Loesch.

Listen to the town hall in its entirety:

Or read the transcript:

JAKE TAPPER, CNN: Good evening and welcome to Broward County, Florida, I'm Jake Tapper.

You're about to witness an historic exchange between survivors of a horrific school shooting and their elected leaders.

In this arena are thousands of people whose lives were changed forever, one week ago today, when a gunman opened fire inside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and killed 17 students and teachers. Four victims remain hospitalized.

But since that horrible day, we have seen this community come together and we have seen an amazing and eloquent group of students with various opinions talk about what they feel needs to change.

We're here tonight to facilitate your desire to speak directly to your leaders, students, and family members, and faculty will get to ask questions to Florida's two US senators, Republican Marco Rubio and Democrat Bill Nelson, as well as their Congressman, Democrat Ted Deutch.

And later tonight these students and their families will get to ask questions of the road County Sheriff, Scott Israel, and a national spokesperson for the NRA.

We should note that President Trump declined an invitation to be here tonight, either in person or from the White House, as did the governor of Florida, Rick Scott who declined to be here in person or from Tallahassee.

Before we begin - before we begin tonight, we want to take some time to remember the 17 beloved members of the community who were murdered one week ago today.

(MUSIC)

TAPPER: May their memory be a blessing.

Students, parents, and teachers, the lawmakers are ready to answer your questions.

But first they each wanted a minute to address you, specifically.

I'm going to start with Congressman Deutsch.

REP. TED DEUTCH, D-FLORIDA: Thanks Jake.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

And thank you to CNN for being here in South Florida for a very important and yet incredibly difficult evening.

A lot of people have told this community, people from all around the world, that it's too soon - it's too soon to get together to have this kind of forum; it's too soon to talk about preventing another tragedy like the one that struck our community from happening anywhere again; it's too soon to talk about getting weapons of war out of our communities.

It is -

(APPLAUSE)

DEUTCH: - it is not - it is not too soon; it is too late for the 17 lives that are lost.

(APPLAUSE)

DEUTCH: It is too late for the grieving families, too late for the injured, too late for the 3,300 survivors of what happened.

Senator Rubio and Senator Nelson, we represent these fine people; we will not be judged by what we say here tonight, by the quality of our answers or by any back-and-forth in words.

DEUTCH: And Senator Nelson, we represent these fine people. We will not be judged by what we say here tonight by the quality of our answers or by any back and forth in words. The folks in our community don't want words, they don't want thoughts and prayers, they don't want discussions, they want action and we owe it to them (inaudible)

(APPLAUSE)

TAPPER: Senator Nelson. Senator Nelson

SEN. BILL NELSON, D-FLORIDA: We're all grieving. Your hope gives me hope. Your determination gives me more determination, and what we're facing is what's going to be done. Now there ought to be some common sense solutions like getting the assault rifles off the streets.

(APPLAUSE)

Another -

(APPLAUSE)

Another common sense solution - having criminal backgrounds on every acquiring of a gun.

(APPLAUSE)

So, you have been so strong. Keep it up and keep hope alive.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

TAPPER: Senator Rubio.

(APPLAUSE)

SEN. MARCO RUBIO, R-FLORIDA: The - there's no words that could describe the pain that a parent feels at the loss of a child or when you lose someone that - it's not natural to lose a child. And I am a U.S. Senator, and I'm also a member of this community, and I'm also a father, and I'm also a husband, and I'm also someone who loves but I don't know what the pain is like to lose a child.

I did not grow up in a school or in an era in which children were shot in classrooms, and even as we watch this pain and the nation suffers with you our - we can never know the feeling. I can tell you this. There is a message that's come through loud and clear, and that is that beyond simply the pain - mixed with that pain is a demand for action and...

(APPLAUSE)

- while in that realm, I want to be honest with you. I think all of us would like to see action, but I want to tell you what we're going to struggle with. We are a nation of people that no longer speak to each other. We are a nation of people who have stopped being friends with people because who they voted for in the last election.

We are a nation of people who have isolated ourselves to only watch channels that tell us that we're right. We're a nation of people that have isolated ourselves politically and to a point where discussions like this have become very difficult. I'm here tonight, and I'm here tonight to answer any question anyone has, explain anything you want to know about what I stand for, what I've done and what I plan to do. And to the students that are here tonight, the ones on the stage, the ones in the audience, I want you to know that I'm actually extremely excited about your engagement, and ill tell you why. I'll tell you why, because I think you have a chance to do a lot more then change gun laws.

You should push for that. You have a chance to do a lot more than that. You have a chance to change the way we talk about politics in this country, and the reason why this event here is so important tonight - the reason why this event is so important - none of us wish we were here.

Eight days ago none of you thought you'd be here, but we are here and it's important that we are because tonight people who have different points of view are going to talk about an issue that I think we all believe and that is that this should never of happened and it can never again.

(APPLAUSE)

And if we want to truly ensure that it doesn't - if we want to ensure that it doesn't then we are going to have to find the way of the nation - as a nation to work with people that may not agree with us on certain things, without accusing one another of being evil people and my side is as guilty is that of any.

And, here's what I hope for the students, do not make the mistakes that my generation is making. It may not be - - I hope it's not too late for my generation, but it most certainly is not for yours. Understand that people - - and I think on a regular basis, we do it in the Senate, between Senator Nelson and I.

I think people that disagree on issues can agree on what they want to achieve and can find a way forward, and that's what I hope tonight is beyond anything else. Because, sadly, we cannot reverse what happened seven days ago today, but we can make sure that one of these events never happens again in any community in this country.

And, if tonight is the beginning of that, then we will have said that this was meaningful, and that's what I'm here to do. And, that's what I hope we can achieve together and that's why I'm here tonight.

You might not like everything I say, or everything I stand for, but I want to find a way forward to solve this problem. So that never again will any community have to face this, any parent have to face this, or any child, yours or mine, have to face this in what I believe is the greatest nation on earth.

(APPLAUSE)

TAPPER: Thank you.

I want to bring in Ryan Schacter. Ryan Schacter's younger brother, Alex, was killed in the shooting. Alex was 14, he played in the school band and the school orchestra. Ryan has a question for Congressman Deutch.

Ryan.

(APPLAUSE)

SCHACTER: Congressman Deutch, my name is Ryan Schacter, I'm a senior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. My brother, Alex, was killed in the shooting last Wednesday. I'm supposed to go back to school in the upcoming week.

My friends and I are worried that we are going to be murdered in our classrooms. What reassurances can you give me and what specifically are you going to do to make sure that we can't have this fear?

DEUTCH: Well, first of all, I offer my heartfelt condolences. I'm sorry for your loss. And, I understand why you feel that way, because in our country today what happened at Stoneman Douglas has happened too many times.

What am I going to do? Well, as a starter, next week when we go back to Washington, we're going to introduce legislation to make sure that assault weapons are illegal in every part of this country.

(APPLAUSE)

But, that's not going to help you when you go back to school and all I can tell you is that we stand with law enforcement in Broward County. We stand with the administration and the teachers in your school to provide as much security, as much comfort, as much as can make you feel that you're in a safe place.

But, beyond that, the best way for us to show that is to take action in Washington, in Tallahassee, to get these weapons of war off of our streets.

(APPLAUSE)

TAPPER: Thank you, Congressman.

I want to bring in Fred Guttenberg. Fred's 14 year-old daughter, Jaime, was lost last week and he has a question for Senator Rubio.

(APPLAUSE)

GUTTENBERG: Senator Rubio, I just listened to your opening and thank you. I want to like you. Here's the problem. And, I'm a brutally honest person, so I'm just going to say it up front.

When I like you, you know it and when I'm pissed at you, you know it. Your comments this week, and those of our president, have been pathetically weak.

(APPLAUSE)

So, you and I are now eye to eye. Because I want to like you. Look at me and tell me guns were the factor in the hunting of our kids in this school this week. And, look at me and tell me you accept it, and you will work with us to do something about guns.

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: Fred, first of all, let me explain what I said this week and I'll repeat it. I'll repeat what I said. And, then I'm going to tell you what we're going to do.

(BOOING)

RUBIO: We're going to talk about guns and we're going to talk about what I said this (inaudible). This is what I said. I said that the problems that we are facing -

GUTTENBURG: Let - - let him speak. I think we need to hear it.

RUBIO: I'm saying that the problems that we're facing here today cannot be solved by gun laws alone. And I'm going to tell you what we've done already and what I hope we'll do moving forward.

GUTTENBURG: Were guns the factor in the hunting of our kids?

RUBIO: Of course they were. And here's what - -

GUTTENBURG: It's the weapons of choice. Can you say that?

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: Number one Fred, I absolutely believe that in this country if you are 18 years of age you should not be able to buy a rifle and I will support a law that takes that right away.

(APPLAUSE)

GUTTENBURG: Fantastic.

RUBIO: I will support - -

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: I will support the banning of bump stocks and I know that the President has ordered the Attorney General to do it and if he doesn't, we should do it by law. I will support changing our background system so that it includes more information than it includes now and that all states across the country are required or incentivized to report all the information into it.

And let me tell you what I've done already. In - - last year when we came up with our budget in the Senate, I pushed for and got approved $50 million a year through the Sandy Hook Initiative to provide a threat assessment fund for - - for all states to be able to stand up in each of the school districts a way to identify people who could potentially do this, and get ahead of it before it happens.

I - - I support - - I support moving forward on that initiative and making it widely available for everyone around the country. Now I think what you're asking about is the assault weapons ban.

GUTTENBURG: Yes sir.

RUBIO: So let me be honest with you about that one. If I believe that that law would have prevented this from happening I would support it. But I want to explain to you why it would not.

(BOOING)

GUTTENBURG: Senator Rubio, my daughter running down the hallway at Marjory Stoneman Douglas was shot in the back.

RUBIO: Yes, sir.

GUTTENBURG: With an assault weapon, the weapon of choice.

RUBIO: Yes, sir.

GUTTENBURG: OK. It is too easy to get. It is a weapon of war. The fact that you can't stand with everybody in this building and say that, I'm sorry.

RUBIO: Sir, I do believe what you're saying is - -

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: I do believe - - I do believe what you're saying is true. I do believe what you're saying - -

(BOOING)

TAPPER: Everyone - - everyone. The Senator has the right to be heard. He's answering Mr. Guttenburg's question.

RUBIO: I do believe what you're saying is true. I believe that someone like this individual and anyone like him shouldn't have any gun. Not this gun, any gun. But I want to explain to you for a moment the problem with the law that they call the Assault Weapon's Ban. And if you'll give me - and indulge me for a minute to explain to you the problem. First you have to define what it is. If you look at the law and it's definition, it basically bans 200 models of gun - - about 220 specific models of gun.

GUTTENBURG: Good. Good.

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: But it makes - - but it - - but it - - it allows legal 2,000 other types of gun that are identical. Identical, in the way that they function and how fast they fire and the type of caliber that they fire and the way they perform. They're indistinguishable from the ones that become illegal. And the only thing that separates the two types - - the only thing that separates the two types is, if you put a plastic handle grip on one it becomes banned, if it doesn't have a plastic handle it does not become banned.

So let me explain if I may, just for a moment more.

GUTTENBURG: Are you saying - -

RUBIO: What the problem has been with the law - -

GUTTENBURG: Are you saying you will start with the 200 and work your way up?

RUBIO: I would explain what has happened - -

(APPLAUSE)

GUTTENBURG: I'll - - It's a place to start. We can do that.

RUBIO: Well - - let me - - let me explain to you what's happened. So in New York they have passed that ban. And you know what they've done to get right around it? It took them 15 seconds to do it. They simply take the plastic tip off of it. They just take the plastic grip off of the front or the back - -

GUTTENBURG: So we don't (inaudible)?

RUBIO: The same gun and it becomes legal, performs the exact same way. So what my belief is - - my belief remains that rather than continue to try to chase every loop hole that's created. That's why it failed in '94. It's why they're getting around it now in California, it's how they get around it in New York - is we instead should make sure that dangerous criminals, people that are deranged cannot buy any gun of any kind. That's what I believe a better answer will be.

(BOOING)

GUTTENBURG: Your answer speaks for itself.

TAPPER: Thank you Mr. Guttenburg. I appreciate your time. The only thing I'm - - I'm not going to tell anybody in this room.

I'm not going to tell anybody in this room not to feel strongly and - - and not to feel emotional. The only thing I will tell you is, when you do this, you're eating up into the time that other people in the audience, other people who want to ask questions are asking questions. OK? So you behave how you want to behave but I want to make sure that as many people in this community - -

DEUTCH: And - and I - and I know - Jake, I know this - I know this is not a debate, but I don't know if we're going to get back to it. And since - and I just want to respond to something Senator Rubio said because - because he told us a lot about - about his views on the assault weapons ban.

And I would just simply say this, if there is a problem with the assault weapons ban - which, by the way, when it expired let's be clear, mass shootings went up 200 percent in the decade after the assault weapons ban expired. But if there was a problem with the way that was written, if there were too many loopholes for - for people trying to get around it to utilize, then let's bring up the assault weapons ban and close all those loopholes so that we have bill that keeps people safe.

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: And Gabe (ph) rose (ph) actually (ph) that is an excellent question. And I want to answer that one, if I may. I know it's not a debate but this is an important point, it really is because it - it is an issue that I want people to understand more about. First of all, it didn't take - I appreciate your words. It didn't - being here tonight is not courage. Courage is what you did, and what you guys are doing, and what those teachers and administrators that - that's courage.

And, Ted (ph), you talked to your story a moment ago. You know, I - I will tell you that what you've done in this effort, irrespective of we may have a different view on something, that's courage. That's real courage. Now on the issue that you've raised about the background checks, relate directly to what you said about the - about the assault weapons ban. It's not the loopholes. It's the problem that once you start looking at how easy it is to get around it, you would literally have to ban every semi-automatic rifle that's sold in the U.S.

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: Fair enough. Fair enough, that - that is a valid position to hold, but my colleagues do not support banning every semi-automatic rifle sold in America.

DEUTCH: I - I believe - I believe that the idea that a gunman like this could march down the halls of Stoneman Douglas High School and fire off 150 rounds in six or seven minutes, that gun should be banned. There is no reason why anybody should own one of those.

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: And that is a very valid point. But my point is that under the law that you support, there would still be 2,000 guns that were legal that could do the exact same thing.

DEUTCH: Well then let's sit down and figure out what they are so that we can ensure people (ph) -

RUBIO: I know, but what I - look, this is an important discussion because now you're seeing what the debate is about the assault weapons ban. And I just ask, will you ban - are you in favor of banning any gun that can do what the AR-15 can do?

DEUTCH: - I -

RUBIO: Yes or no?

DEUTCH: - I - I am in favor, Senator Rubio. If you have a concern about - let me just answer this question because it's important.

RUBIO: It is, that's the whole debate.

DEUTCH: Yes, and the - and the answer to the question is, do I support weapons that fire-off 150 rounds in seven or eight minutes, weapons that are weapons of war that serve no purpose other than killing the maximum number of people they can, you bet I am.

RUBIO: OK.

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: That's important to know. And I want - that is a very fair position to hold, the - so you - and I just want you to understand, that goes well beyond the bill that's before us now.

DEUTCH: Well then sit with me and let's come up with something that you support.

RUBIO: OK. I would - I would - I'd like to let Senator Nelson into this conversation as well. Yes, I - I only raised that, not to get into a debate - and I - and I want Senator Nelson to speak, of course. I just want to say that I - the reason why I raised that point is so you understand, that is what the debate is about. It is about the fact that there are over - virtually every rifle sold in America today, can do what that gun does. We - and - and -

DEUTCH: That's not true.

RUBIO: - it is true. It's absolutely -

DEUTCH: Senator Nelson.

RUBIO: - I'm sorry, go ahead.

NELSON: Let me tell you about the bill that I have co-sponsored. It defines very specifically assault rifle, it lists 200 different assault rifles. It lists, for example, the Kalashnikov AK-47 that - did you know is manufactured in this state. Did you know that the state of Florida, the governor's office gave financial incentives for them to come into the state and manufacture? Tell you another one, that it is listed in that list of over 200 rifles. It's the Sig Sauer MCX. That was the one that Omar Mateen, despite the fact that he had been on the terrorist watch list and was off, went into a gun shop and purchased that high-powered assault rifle.

And on that list, it also includes the AR-15. And did you know that the state of Florida, the governor's office, gave financial incentives for the Colt corporation to come to Kissimmee to manufacture AR-15s, the same one that wreaked such havoc here at and that you all are suffering so terribly from.

TAPPER: Thank you, thank you...

NELSON: And so it can in fact be defined if you're very specific, and that's the bill that I'm a co-sponsor of.

TAPPER: Thank you, Senator.

(APPLAUSE)

I want to bring in senior Ryan Deitsch. He has a question for Senator Rubio.

DEITSCH: First, I'd just like to say to Senator Rubio: Thank you so much for coming out here. I know, especially everybody that I've been working with over the past week, we've just really wanted to reach out and speak face to face to anybody who has a say in this debate.

And I know this is not a debate. This is a discussion. But I'm just thankful to have you here, to be looking at you today. Thank you so much, sir, for coming.

(APPLAUSE)

Now - now I'd like to say, Senator, these drills, code reds, active shooters, they've been a part of my life for as long as I can remember.

When I was in fifth grade, I had to hide in the - in a - in a bathroom for three - for three hours, and just waiting with my teacher and nearly 20 other kids, to see that - just because a shooter has come to our town. Not even in the school itself.

Now, seven years later, I'm in a closet with 19 other kids, waiting, fearing for my own life. Now I'd like to ask you that, after me and several others have been going out of their way, going to the state capital, speaking out, we - we'd like to know, Why do we have to be the ones to do this? Why do we have to speak out to the capital.

(APPLAUSE)

Why do we have to march on Washington, just to save innocent lives?

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: I agree.

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: You're right. You're - you're absolutely right. And let me start by saying - and it goes without saying - that what you've lived through and what you live through is not supposed to be a part of your high school experience. It's just not supposed to happen.

The second thing I would say is that it is unfortunate that, in this country, we haven't been able to make progress on any major issue for a lot of different reasons, and this being one of them.

But you have do - you do have a chance to change it. I really believe it. But the change that we are going to have to figure out, how people that have strong feelings on both sides can agree on things. And I think you are making progress. I can tell you what's already happening, as a result of your advocacy.

For example, I've already announced - and I hope they will pass it. I really think they will, and they should - a concept called the Gun Violence Restraining Order, that allows authorities - and it has to be someone in your immediate family.

It has to be somebody you live with, it has to be your parent, it has to be an administrator - can go to authorities and allow someone to not just be prevented from purchasing any firearm, OK? Not just the rifle. Any firearm. And allow those to be taken from them, and that person will have due process.

Because I believe that if that were in place in Florida, and it - I - about three states already have it - it could have prevented this from happening. And I support that, and I hope they will pass that. And I think that is a result of your advocacy.

(CROSSTALK)

DEITSCH: If I may, I - I do appreciate your words there. But that feels like the first step of a 5K run.

RUBIO: It most certainly is.

(LAUGHTER)

I would say it's more than a 5K run...

(APPLAUSE)

... this issue - this issue will take more than a 5K run because there's so much to do. But that is an important step. And if that happens in the next three weeks, it'll be because of what you guys have done.

And it won't end there. On Monday of this week, I believe we're going to try, Senator Nelson and I, to pass the FixNICS Act, which is fixing the background check system. Because the background check is only as good as the information that's on it.

And one of the problems we have - and this is going to be an uncomfortable discussion for our country - we're going to have to look at HIPAA laws, when it comes to certain things. Because right now, they can't - these people can't even talk to each other if someone is under psychiatric care or something's going on in their lives. That's going to have to be fixed.

(APPLAUSE)

And what I'm saying is - what you're doing now is making a difference, it is making a difference. It's already started to make a difference. I believe it can and will make a difference if this doesn't end here, because the way we were in this country today, and I don't mean that as a criticism of you, Jake, but the cameras will leave, and the issues move on, but the heartbreak will remain.

And so if we truly want this to be the last time, then what you have done cannot end next week or next month or even next year, but I do believe at the end of the three-week session in Tallahassee, you've achieved that restraining order and a few other important things that I believe they're thinking about doing, I would take that, I would herald it as a victory, and I would continue the momentum moving forward until we make sure no community in America will ever have to have a forum like the one here tonight.

(APPLAUSE)

TAPPER: Thank you, Ryan. President Trump said today that we should consider arming teachers. We'll hear what a Stoneman Douglas teacher things about that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome back to CNN's Town Hall with the students and faculty and family members of Stoneman Douglas High School. I want to bring in right now Ashley Kirth. She's a culinary arts teacher at Stoneman Douglas.

(APPLAUSE)

TAPPER: For those of you at home who don't know, because I think Everybody in this room knows, she sheltered 65 students in her Classroom during the shoot out.

(APPLAUSE)

TAPPER: Ashley, thank you so much. She has a question for Senator Rubio.

ASHLEY KURTH: Senator Rubio, I'm a registered Republican. I voted for Mr. Trump. I still, you know, support the 2nd Amendment. However, with that being said and with all these talks of gun control laws and everything that you guys have been up there saying to us about what you're going to do about it, a lot of the flack that I've been getting back from my friends and from a lot of other people that are around the world is, the answer to the gun problem is to arm teachers.

And when I had those hundreds of terrified children that were running at me, my question to that is, am I supposed to get extra training now to serve and protect on top of educate these children? On - - on how to be these eloquent speakers that are coming up and presenting issues to you? I - - I mean, am I supposed to have a kevlar vest? Am I supposed to strap it to my leg or put it in my desk? How am I supposed to go (audio gap) that way?

RUBIO: Well first, I don't support that.

(APPLAUSE)

I - - I think I join everyone here in saying what you've done is incredible heroism. It reminds us that teachers are heroes everyday. Not just on these days investing in the lives of all of our students. And I think that bears thanks.

(APPLAUSE)

I - - I don't and I don't support that and I - - I would admit you right now I answer that as much as a father as I do as a Senator. The notion that my kids are going to school with teachers that are armed with a weapon is not something, quite frankly, I'm comfortable with. Beyond it, I think it has practical problems, and I'll share what they are. And this is really about the safety of the teachers as much as anything else.

Imagine in the middle of this crisis and the SWAT team comes into the building and there's an adult with a weapon in their hands and the SWAT team doesn't know who is who and we have an additional tragedy that was unnecessary. And so, I - - I understand how some people are saying that and I'm not belittling them. But as a father and as someone who has talked to plenty of teachers including the three in my family and the assistant principal in my family. I - - I don't think that would be a good idea in my view.

KURTH: The first thing that happened when the SWAT team came in, the first question they asked is anybody injured, and the following question is does anybody have a gun. And I wouldn't want to be the person saying, yes, I do.

RUBIO: I agree with you. Yes ma'am.

(APPLAUSE)

TAPPER: Senator Nelson, President Trump suggested earlier today that - - that he thought arming teachers might be an idea worth considering. Do you think it is?

(BOOING)

NELSON: I think it is a terrible idea.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, I was so impressed on the TV of the students, what they were saying to the President, and then the President comes out with suggestions like that.

(APPLAUSE)

You heard what the superintendent said. He doesn't want to have to arm teachers. Now - - now the sheriff came up with a suggestion that he's going to have a deputy that will be armed, but that deputy can't be in all of your buildings in a school of 3,000 students.

(APPLAUSE)

It will help if it's a deterrent. It is good. But, if the weapon is a high caliber, rapid fire assault weapon, it is hard to go into a fight against that if you've got just a handgun. That's not a fair fight. So get the assault weapons out.

(APPLAUSE)

TAPPER: I want to bring in -

(APPLAUSE)

I want to bring in Robert Schentrup. Robert lost his sister Carmen in the shooting last week. She was 16. She was a National Merit Semi-finalist. Robert's question is for Congressman Deutch. Robert.

ROBERT SCHENTRUP: Congressman Deutch, today would have been Carmen's 17th birthday. But sadly, we are having to celebrate her life instead of celebrating what a new year might bring. My question is, if a majority of Americans has long supported stricter gun control regulations, but our elected officials who are supposed to represent the people have done nothing, does this mean that our democracy is broken?

(APPLAUSE)

DEUTCH: First of all, I'm so sorry - - I'm so sorry for your loss.

What you're doing here is celebrating her life. What you're doing in asking that question is honoring her memory. And let me answer - let me be pretty straightforward about that. Is our democracy broken? A little bit. A little bit, it is. And I'm going to tell you why. First of all, when it comes - you said it's widely supported.

There is a poll that came out yesterday that showed that 97%, which when you add in the margin of error, is everyone in America, supports universal background checks. Now - so there - look. I don't have a good answer for why something that's supported by 100% of the American people hasn't been passed. Instead, look, there is a bill, there is a bill, Senator Rubio talked about the bill, the president talked about this bill that's going to make sure that they're talking about expanding background checks, making sure that everyone complies with what needs to be in the background check. Great. Let's do that.

But you know what else we need to do? Make sure that every single person in America who buys a gun has a background check. And secondly, look, and this is a bigger issue, is our democracy broken? When any organization spends tens of millions of dollars promoting the interests of gun corporations to influence what happens in our elections, then yes, our democracy is a little broken.

(APPLAUSE)

DEUTCH: - but the way - but here's - here's the beauty, here's the beauty of our democracy. No matter how much money the NRA spends on political campaigns, millions and millions of dollars spent trying to convince people that representing the interests of gun companies is more important than standing up for the safety of the people of America, no matter how much they spend, here's why our democracy is great, because everything we've seen, from the 3,300 survivors of Marjory Stoneman Douglas, the leadership that has been shown is leading a movement that is so much stronger than money spent in political campaigns. That's why the democracy can be fixed and will be fixed.

(APPLAUSE)

TAPPER: I want to bring in Cameron Kasky, he's a junior, and he has a question for Senator Rubio. Cameron?

(APPLAUSE)

KASKY: I'm sorry, I know I'm not supposed to do this, but I'm not going to listen to that. Senator Rubio, it's hard to look at you and not look down a barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nicholas Cruz, but the point is you're here and there some people who are not.

And I need to ask two things of you. Number one, Chris Grady, can you stand up? This is my friend who is going to the military. I need you to tell him that he's going to live to make it to serve our country. And then we'll get to the other one.

RUBIO: Not only are you going to live to serve our country, you and you and all of you have a chance to change our country. Change not just our laws but the way we talk about our laws. So absolutely.

KASKY: Thank you. And guys, look, this isn't about red and blue. We can't boo people because they're democrats and boo people because they're republicans. Anyone who is willing to show change, no matter where they're from, anyone who is willing to start to make a difference is somebody we need on our side here. And this is about people who are for making a difference to save us and people who are against it and prefer money. So Senator Rubio, can you tell me right now that you will not accept a single donation from the NRA in the future?

(APPLAUSE)

KASKY: I wish I could have - I wish I could have spoken - I wished I could have asked the NRA lady a question. I would ask her, how she can look in the mirror, considering the fact she has children, but maybe she avoids those.

RUBIO: I'm sorry, what was that?

KASKY: I don't freaking know.

RUBIO: That's okay -

TAPPER: The question is about NRA money.

RUBIO: - so number one, the positions I hold on these issues of the second amendment - I've held since the day entered office in the city of West Miami as an elected official.

Number two - no. The answer to the question is that people buy into my agenda. And I do support the Second Amendment. And I also support the right of you and everyone here to be able to go to school and be safe.

And I do support any law that would keep guns out of the hands of a deranged killer. And that's why I support the things that I have stood for and fought for -

KASKY: No more - no more NRA money?

RUBIO: - during my time here.

KASKY: More NRA money?

RUBIO: I - there - that is the wrong way to look - first of all, the answer is, people buy into my agenda.

KASKY: You can say no.

RUBIO: Well - I - I - the influence of any group -

KASKY: Guys, come on , be quiet. We're gonna be here all night.

RUBIO: The influence of these groups comes not from money. The influence comes from the millions of people that agree with the agenda. The millions...

KASKY: See, I see...

RUBIO: - of Americans that support the NRA, and who...

TAPPER: All right.

RUBIO: - support gun rights...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Sorry, Senator.

Guys.

KASKY: Guys, guys, if you...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Cameron is having a conversation with Senator Rubio. Let's let them talk.

RUBIO: But I - I - listen. I respect - you can ask that question, and I can tell you that I - people buy into my agenda. I will answer any questions you guys have about any policy issue...

(CROSSTALK)

KASKY: Right - right - right now -

Guys, be quiet, be quiet. You know we're gonna be here all night.

RUBIO: And I - and I just think that, ultimately, that is not our goal here. Our goal here is to move forward...

KASKY: Wait, so, hold on. So - so right now...

RUBIO: ... and prevent - and prevent this from ever happening again.

KASKY: ... in the name - in the name of 17 people, you cannot ask the NRA to keep their money out of your campaign?

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: I think in the name of 17 people, I can pledge to you that I will support any law that will prevent a killer like this from getting a gun.

KASKY: No, but I'm talking about NRA money.

(OFF-MIKE)

RUBIO: No, no. Because I - matter of fact, I bet we can get people in here to give you exactly as much money as the NRA would have...

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: But it's not - I understand. And you're right.

KASKY: Can you stand up and put your name to that real quick? OK. Not a lot. But we'll get it.

(LAUGHTER)

KASKY: I'll do it...

(CROSSTALK)

RUBIO: You're - you're right about that.

KASKY: ... you know, we've raised quite a bit of money so far.

RUBIO: Well, you're right about that. There is money on both sides of every issue in America. And where that leaves us in policymaking, is to look at the issues and make a decision based on what we think is right.

But ultimately, look. The First Amendment is as - is as important as the Second. And therefore, you have every right to ask that question of me, and I...

(CROSSTALK)

KASKY: Are you gonna be accepting money from the NRA in the future?

RUBIO: I - I've always supported...

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: - I will always accept the help of anyone who agrees with my agenda. But my agenda is - I'll give you a perfect example...

(CROSSTALK)

KASKY: Your agenda is protecting us, right?

RUBIO: Well, I'll give you an example, this very evening. I have told you that I support lifting the age from 18 to 21 of buying a rifle. My understanding, before I walked out here, is that that organization is not in favor of that. But I think that's the right thing to do.

I don't know what their position is, on teachers being armed. But I don't think they should be. Because that's what I think the right thing to do is.

When I offered my bill to restrict people on the terrorist watch list, or that have been on the list for the last 10 years from purchasing a weapon, they didn't take a stand. I don't think they - they certainly didn't support my - but I offered it.

I will do what I think is right. And if people want to support my agenda, they're welcome to do so. But they buy into my ideas. I don't buy into theirs.

KASKY: OK. So I knew that was gonna happen. NRA, please just keep the money out of Rubio, OK? If he wants to run again, you guys can...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Thank you, Cameron. Appreciate it.

(APPLAUSE)

TAPPER: Stay with us. More survivors of the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School stand up, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome back to the BB&T Center in Florida and CNN's town hall with the students and families and faculty of Stoneman Douglas High School. Next week students are going to return to campus for the first time since the shooting. Our next question comes from first year student Michelle Lapido (ph). She has a question for Senator Nelson. Michelle.

LAPIDO (ph): I just want to start with my school is not going to be another statistic in the 18 shootings that happened this year. My school's going to be the last and the beginning of gun control. Stoneman Douglas is strong and will be heard because our kids and our staff did not die for nothing. They died for change and they died for each other. Their deaths will not be taken in vain but as a calling for the change, gun control and safety in America. They're watching us from heaven and we are going to save what they died to protect.

So, I had a question for Ms. Loesch but she's not here yet. So for her and the NRA - she's probably watching - and all of you puppet politicians that they are backing. Was the blood of my classmates and my teachers worth your blood money?

TAPPER: Senator Nelson, you don't have to answer that question. Let's move on to the - - to the next question.

(BOOING)

LAPIDO (ph): Excuse me? I'm a student. I should have the - -

TAPPER: I understand that but your question - - I thought you were going to ask Senator Nelson a question. You're question sounds like you wanted to ask Dana Loesch a question in the next segment and I'm happy to do that if you want.

LAPIDO (ph): It's actually fine. I had another question for you Senator Nelson.

TAPPER: OK. Let's do that then.

LAPIDO (ph): So, I'm going to have to go back to school. On to the same campus, the same building to pick up my stuff, to resume my classes, to keep studying and I'm never going to feel safe on another public school campus ever again. I never want to have to go through and feel like I'm putting myself in such a vulnerable situation ever because that was one of the worst moments of my life.

So why don't we consider the worst possible scenarios? Because these things have been happening all around the country and it's more common than winning any lottery. Why don't we assume the worst situation like we do on planes, where we have life vests in case we land in the ocean or slides in case we need to an emergency crash. Why don't we have Kevlar vests in classrooms for our students? Why don't we build our walls with Kevlar so that kids aren't being shot through their own walls because they're so cheaply built? Why don't we have more funding to protect ourselves? Why do you guys protect yourselves with guns, protect yourselves with vests and you protect America's children with nothing but drywall?

(APPLAUSE)

NELSON: And my answer is, why don't we get the assault rifles off the street. Why don't we do the criminal background checks so that you have much more of a measure of security when you go to school? No, you shouldn't have to have Kevlar vests. That's part of being in America and that's what your school board, your teachers, your principal, they have done so effectively is, they try to protect you and even stand in the way of bullets to protect you. That is not a fear that you should have.

And although we are all grieving right now - this is a very tough time - there is a great strength that's coming out in the voices that are being spoken here and you've got to let that strength overrule the fears.

But at the same time, you've got to continue to be strong and speak out.

I said earlier your hope gives me hope; your determination gives me more determination to see this through and get some common-sense laws with regards to guns in America.

TAPPER: Thank you, Senator.

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: - lives, so many teachers lives - all of this, for it to change, why does it have to take so many, by the first time it should've been changed but it's -

NELSON: Less -

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: - gone this far -

NELSON: - let me just say -

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -inaudible died -

NELSON: - inaudible -

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: - you lost a future Olympic medalist, whose funeral I was supposed to be attending but you know change is more important because that's what they would've wanted.

Why does it have to take so much blood to be spilled, so much money for you guys to gain from not answering the questions, Mr. Rubio?

Why - why is this happening?

Why are we - why hasn't this changed already, why do we have to be the last school, why wasn't the first school the last school?

(APPLAUSE)

NELSON: And you could ask, the same question, why two years ago when 49 lives were taken in the Pulse nightclub, and nothing was done; not in Washington, not in Tallahassee, not one thing offered by the administration in Tallahassee.

And here we are, going through this again.

And it's going to unfortunately very possibly continue unless we get some common-sense laws on the book.

TAPPER: Thank you Senator Nelson.

I want to bring Chris Grady back, Cameron introduced us all to him, he's a senior and he recently enlisted in the Army, and thank you for that.

Chris Grady.

And he has a question for Senator Rubio.

GRADY: I would just like to thank you again for coming out and listening to us because that's a lot more than what can be said for our so-called president and governor.

(APPLAUSE)

GRADY: I believe I speak for myself and my colleagues in the "Never Again Movement" when I say, though we might not see eye-to-eye on a lot of these issues, we need you and your colleagues on both sides to come together with us and find compromise, if we are ever to solve this epidemic that is - I'm sorry - this epidemic that has plaguing our country.

Senator Rubio, I believe a big issue, when it comes to the debate about semiautomatic weapons and automatic weapons is large capacity magazines.

Would you agree that there is no place in our society for large capacity magazines capable of firing off - over - from 15 to 30 rounds and if not more?

RUBIO: First let me thank you for your willingness to serve our country, you're doing it tonight and you're going to be do it in uniform and we're very grateful to you.

(APPLAUSE)

And I'm glad you asked that question because I traditionally have not supported looking at magazine clip size, and after this and some of the details I learned about it, I'm reconsidering that position and I tell you why.

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: I'll tell you why.

Because while it may not prevent an attack, it may save lives in an attack. And I'll let - I'll let the authorities discuss at the appropriate time why I say that.

But suffice it to say that I believe that there will be evidence that at a key moment in this incident, three or four people - three or four people might be alive today because of something that this deranged killer date, had to do, and obviously it's not for me to make law enforcement announcements.

I don't know what the right number is. I don't know what - I know that there are for example handguns that has 17 and so we'll have to get into that debate. But that is something I believe we can reach a compromise in this country and that I am willing to reconsider because I do believe that in this instance, it didn't prevent - it wouldn't have prevented the attack but it made it less lethal.

And that's the kind of thing that I hope my colleagues - and that's why these discussions are important because they do lead you to rethink positions after you've taken new information and new input from people.

By the way American politics is the only part of our lives where changing your mind based on new information is a - is a bad thing.

We do it in every other aspect of our lives. And we've got to - and we have to stop doing that as well.

So that is an issue I'll look into absolutely.

(APPLAUSE)

TAPPER: Thank you Senator.

(APPLAUSE)

There's no question that the Republican Party is more allied with the NRA than the Democratic Party. But it also is worth pointing out that the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House in 2009 and 2010 and gun control was not a priority. That's just a fact. Senator Nelson, was that a mistake by your party?

NELSON: Yes. When the Senate had 60 votes, as we did until Ted Kennedy died, that's how we got the Affordable Care Act passed. And, yes, gun legislation under those circumstances should have been considered because there'd been a lot of massacres up to that point. It was Sandy Hook that occurred later in the Obama administration that a lot of people thought would be the turning point because of these little first, second, and third graders gunned down.

And yet, nothing was done. And then you go through all the other shootings. And so, I can tell you that in the meantime, until we do get 60 votes again in the U.S. Senate, when we could guarantee that we would get the legislation through, I'm going to continue to work with my colleagues and specifically Senator Rubio to see whatever we can get.

The hard reality is that there are not a majority of senators, primarily the ones that have been supported financially

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Transcript: Stoneman students' questions to lawmakers and the NRA at the CNN town hall | CNN Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Survivors of the massacre at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, took center stage at a CNN town hall Wednesday in Sunrise, Florida. The students, their parents and teachers asked frank questions of Sens. Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson, Rep. Ted Deutch, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel and National Rifle Association spokeswoman Dana Loesch.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cop Who Didn't Enter School During Florida School Shooting Resigns

# data[].attributes.subject
Cop Who Didn't Enter School During Florida School Shooting Resigns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The home of the former school resource deputy who stayed outside the Florida high school as last week's massacre unfolded was being protected Friday by law enforcement officials - even as President Trump called out the ex-cop, suggesting he was a "coward."

Reporters who attempted to approach the West Palm Beach home of ex-Broward County Sheriff's Office Deputy Scot Peterson were reportedly met with resistance from at least six police officers who were standing guard outside.

"They prevented us from approaching the house," WSVN's Frank Guzman tweeted Thursday.

An Associated Press reporter said he approached Peterson's home Thursday night, seeing lights on inside and cars present. He rang the doorbell twice, but no one answered.
TIMELINE OF FLORIDA SCHOOL SHOOTING
Before departing for his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday morning, Trump, in a set of fiery remarks, lambasted Peterson.

"When it came time to get in there and do something, he didn't have the courage, or something happened," Trump said. "He certainly did a poor job. That's the case where somebody was outside, they are trained, they didn't react properly under pressure or they were a coward."

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said Peterson, who was armed when gunman Nikolas Cruz opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, "never went in[to]" the building that was under attack. He said the school resource officer instead took up a position viewing the western entrance of the building.

Israel said he was "devastated, sick to my stomach" after learning of Peterson's inaction during the school shooting that left 17 people dead. The sheriff said he believes Peterson remained outside the building for roughly four minutes, while the shooting in total lasted around six minutes. Israel said the officer never fired his weapon.

"What matters is that when we, in law enforcement, arrive at an active shooter, we go in and address the target," the sheriff said. "And that's what should've been done."

When asked what Peterson should have done, Israel said the deputy should have "went in, addressed the killer, killed the killer."

He added: "There are no words. I mean, these families lost their children...I've been to the funerals...I've been to the vigils. It's just, ah, there are no words."

Peterson resigned Thursday after video surveillance showed he never entered the school, even though he "clearly" knew there was a shooting taking place, officials said.

Officer Tim Burton of the Coral Springs Police Department, who responded to the shooting, told The New York Times that Peterson "was seeking cover behind a concrete column leading to a stairwell."

More on the Florida school shooting...

The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office confirmed to WTVJ that Peterson's family requested privacy and protection following Peterson's resignation.

Student Jenna Jorsten told WSVN that she was "in shock" Peterson stayed outside -- especially after learning of unarmed teachers and students risking their lives to save others.

"If he's the one with a gun, he should be the one out there with the gun trying to protect the kids," she said. "Why was he hiding outside? It just makes no sense to me whatsoever. I mean it just doesn't make sense to me at all."
FLORIDA SCHOOL SHOOTING SURVIVORS DREAD PARKLAND CAMPUS RETURN
Cruz, 19, has been jailed on 17 counts of murder and police said he confessed to being the shooter. Defense attorneys, state records and people who knew him indicate Cruz displayed behavioral troubles for years.

Two other deputies from the Broward County Sheriff's Office have been placed on restrictive duty as officials investigate "whether or not they could have done more, should've done more."

The officers were identified by WSVN as Edward Eason and Guntis Treijis.

Their restricted assignments come as authorities found they responded to at least 23 calls regarding Cruz or his brother since 2008. In two of the instances, Col. Jack Dale said, protocol might not have been followed.

Israel said an investigation remains ongoing.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cop who didn't enter school during Florida shooting resigns, has home guarded, is slammed as 'coward' by Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The home of the former school resource deputy who stayed outside the Florida high school as last week's massacre unfolded was being protected Friday by law enforcement officials - even as President Trump called out the ex-cop, suggesting he was a "coward."

# data[].attributes.headline
Teachers in This Texas School are Already Armed

# data[].attributes.subject
Teachers in This Texas School are Already Armed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the days since a 19-year-old gunman stormed onto his former high school campus in Parkland, Fla., killing 17 people with an AR-15 assault rifle, the nation has been embroiled in a debate over what to do about school violence: How do you make it stop?

Here at Argyle High School, they already have an answer to that question: The teachers are packing handguns.

Among those arriving Thursday was teaching assistant Theresa Locastro, who said the school board's decision to allow staff to be armed after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012 "set an example for various schools that we mean business."

Experts say it's not clear whether such policies reduce the likelihood of school shootings or the death toll. But President Trump and other lawmakers have voiced support for arming teachers - on Thursday the president suggested giving bonuses to school staff members who carry guns. Officials at Argyle and other districts say the policies deter shooters and provide peace of mind, and that other schools should follow their lead. Scores of Texas school districts allow teachers to carry arms.

"It's essential to keep us safe," said Lizzie Dagg, 18, Argyle senior class president, who spent part of lunch Thursday signing a banner expressing sympathy to Parkland students.

Ari Freilich, a San Francisco-based staff attorney with the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said studies have shown more permissive concealed-carry laws contribute to gun violence, although he was not aware of studies at schools.

Freilich said that many teachers are already overwhelmed and that "asking them to be first responders too is not in the interest of students."

Amy Klinger, co-founder of the Ohio-based Educator's School Safety Network, said that rather than arming them, schools should train teams of educators to assess threats. The calls by Trump and others for guns in schools have "really taken the focus off things that are more effective," she said. "We need to do things that work, not that feel good."

Klinger said more guns on campus can lead to more accidental shootings, including two earlier this month in Minnesota and Florida, and it's unreasonable to expect even armed staff on large campuses to be able to stop a mass shooter.

"We need to train our teachers how to identify these people. People don't want to hear that - they want a quick fix," she said.

In Texas, school boards must approve arming teachers. At least 170 districts allow employees and in some cases board members to carry firearms, according to the Texas Assn. of School Boards. About 150 districts have their own police departments, and more than 250 districts without police have school resource officers.

"You have to weigh what's best for your district, taking into account the district size, mitigation and threats," he said.

Overwhelmingly Republican, Texas is known for supporting gun rights. The National Rifle Assn. is holding its annual convention in Dallas this May, just a few years after convening in Houston. Texas had more guns registered last year than any other state (588,696), followed by California (344,622) and Florida (343,288).

Texas voters have passed several laws in recent years expanding the right to carry guns openly and on college campuses. Government offices and businesses that don't allow people to openly carry must post signs at their entrances.

But Texas has also seen support for gun control grow. Protesters rallied to oppose campus-carry rights two years ago, mostly notably at the University of Texas at Austin, where opponents formed the "Gun Free UT" alliance.

Some faculty even resigned rather than teach with guns in their classrooms. They worried not only about potential attacks by disturbed shooters, but also about guns firing accidentally or getting lost. Last week some of their fears were borne out when two guns were found left behind in women's restrooms on two different campuses of UT Austin.

Argyle officials consulted other schools that had already armed teachers before approving the policy. Supt. Telena Wright called her counterpart at the nearby Harrold Independent School District, among the first in the country to arm teachers. It's a tiny district - just 115 students - in a county the size of Rhode Island policed by half a dozen sheriff's deputies; response time is a concern.

Harrold Supt. David Thweatt had proposed arming teachers after the shooting at West Nickel Mines School in Pennsylvania's Amish country in 2006. School board members initially balked, then changed their minds after the mass shooting that killed 32 that spring at Virginia Tech.

Thweatt has since worked with Texas state lawmakers to pass a law providing training for school staff who serve as armed "guardians." He tells those who call for advice to keep armed staff anonymous, like air marshals, and to have them carry their weapons at all times.

"You need to be ready," Thweatt said.

Thweatt said he spends less than $1,000 on training and arming teachers, and that bigger districts might pay more but have comparably larger budgets. "It's very cost-effective," he said.

Argyle is a much larger, fast-growing district, with 2,400 students, 850 of them at the high school. Before the school board approved the policy, officials held a town hall that hundreds of residents attended. Many spoke during public comment - all in favor of arming, the superintendent said.

"After that night, I knew the community was going to be solidly behind it," Wright said, and feedback from parents and staff continues to be positive. School officials have fielded calls from districts in Michigan, Oregon and Virginia.

Staff who volunteer to be armed must have their concealed handgun license and pass psychological screening, according to Argyle Schools Police Chief Paul Cairney.

Staff who are approved carry handguns, either their own or those provided by the district, which Cairney also screens to ensure they work. Volunteers attend three to five days of training initially, and annual retraining, including active-shooter simulations.

"Our teachers carry the gun on them at all times. That's because if something happens, it's going to be precious seconds and we want them to be able to immediately enter the fight," he said.

District officials declined to say how much the program costs, how many staff volunteer, and which are armed, but Cairney said they're at every school.

He said staff haven't had any accidents or guns go missing since the program started. He stressed that arming staff is not the district's sole security strategy. They also monitor school-issued student laptops; got a new system to check social media; and lock entrances and electronically screen the identification of all who enter the schools, even parents and former students.

On Thursday, walking through the school's halls, Cairney noted that he had passed several armed staff. Since the Florida shooting, more staff have volunteered to carry weapons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
As gun debate roils on, teachers in this Texas school are already armed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the days since a 19-year-old gunman stormed onto his former high school campus in Parkland, Fla., killing 17 people with an AR-15 assault rifle, the nation has been embroiled in a debate over what to do about school violence: How do you make it stop?