# data[].attributes.body
Watch on Netflix We are Columbine, Newtown

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SCHOOL SHOOTINGS: What We Know, What We Can Do

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Does "target hardening" do more harm than good?

When confronted with the horror of school shootings, we face a dilemma. Naturally, we are deeply troubled by such incidents. The tragedies are so sad and profound-for the families, schools, surrounding communities, and the nation as a whole-that it is difficult to ignore these events as statistical white noise.

Yet from a rational perspective, we need to recognize that schools, on the whole, are extremely safe places for young people. A joint report from the National Center for Education Statistics and the U.S. Department of Education concluded that children and youth were 87 times more likely to die by murder or suicide outside of school than in it.

How do we weigh our awareness of the overall safe character of U.S. schools against the compelling desire to prevent more school shootings? How do we balance these two perspectives? In our view, achieving a balance means taking rational and effective actions to prevent school shootings while also being cautious not to sacrifice educational goals or the school climate for the sake of exaggerated safety concerns.

One approach that risks sacrificing these values is an overemphasis on "target hardening," which focuses on safety and security technologies such as metal detectors and surveillance cameras, deployment of school resource officers (SROs), and implementation of lockdown procedures and "runhide-fight" training. These are intended to diminish fear and build a sense of safety. They also are thought to provide a level of administrative control and a consistent monitoring of student behavior.

In recent decades, these practices have become increasingly popular, particularly in public schools. The share of public schools employing security professionals rose considerably between 2005-06 and 2015-16, increasing from 42% to 57% having security staff; from 36% to 48% having law enforcement officers; and from 32% to 42% having SROs. Perhaps even more telling, security cameras were present in only 19.4% of public schools in 1999-2000 but were installed in more than 80% by 2015-16. Likewise, practices such as locking or monitoring doors and using metal detectors have also seen modest increases during these same time periods. Metal detector checks are more common in city schools and in those serving many students of color and low-income students.

While target hardening is more widespread in urban public schools, parents in suburban schools also embrace the implementation of security measures. Suburban parents readily accept target hardening as a sign that schools are taking violence seriously and adopting measures to protect the physical and mental well-being of their children.

Regardless of location, school and district leaders are under pressure to adopt targethardening strategies. Incidents, such as school shootings, are highly publicized. The media frequently and intensively cover these events, leaving disturbing images fresh in the minds of parents, who then feel that schools have become unsafe for their children and argue to administrators that more must be done. Additionally, school communities turn to target hardening to safeguard against potential litigation that could stem from a perception that a school is "unsafe." Layering a school with various security technologies and providing security training for staff allows administrators and policymakers to point to concrete steps they have taken to safeguard buildings.

In 2018, the high-profile school shootings in Parkland, FL, and Santa Fe, TX, prompted political action. In March, President Trump asked secretary of education Betsy DeVos to chair a newly formed Federal Commission on School Safety. It released its report recommending a greater focus on target hardening; additional armed and trained staff in schools; and enhanced mental health services, among other measures. The commission mostly ignored the topic of access to firearms, even the question of age restrictions, which the administration had encouraged the panel to consider. The commission also recommended a reversal of the Obama administration's guidelines on school discipline, which prohibited schools from meting out student punishments disproportionately by race.

Further political response to school shootings was evident in referenda approved by voters in November 2018, providing funds to enhance school safety and improve mental-health services for students. In Indiana, the Indianapolis Public Schools ($52 million) and the Noblesville School District ($50 million) will use these funds to augment school-safety features and provide better mental-health support for students. Voters approved a similar ballot referendum in Cook County, IL, ($69 million), where funds will be used for security upgrades and other improvements to buildings.

The safety measures will focus on enhanced security for school entrances, improved lighting, and upgraded security cameras. New Jersey voters gave the nod to a referendum ($500 million) that included funding for safety upgrades across K-12 schools. Finally, in Miami-Dade County ($232 million per year over five years), voters passed a measure aimed at teacher raises and hiring more school resource officers. Each year, 10% to 20% of the money will be allocated to boost safety and security features.

While target hardening is an increasingly prevalent response to school shootings, it brings up a number of questions and concerns. What kind of impacts do security practices and technologies have on the learning environment? What messages do such practices send to students?

To be sure, some students might feel safer and calmer in hardened environments, but it is equally plausible that intensive security procedures send the message that schools are unsafe, fearful places, thus adding an element of stress to the learning environment. Some evidence suggests that security technology such as surveillance cameras and metal detectors sends different messages, depending on the student population. For example, research indicates that African American students perceive school security practices as being implemented less fairly than their white peers do. The question, then, of how to get the messaging right when it comes to security practices, if it can be "right," deserves serious consideration.

Another important question: To what extent and in what ways do teachers and other school personnel reinterpret their roles and responsibilities in a target-hardened school?

Some security practices-the use of armed officers and metal detectors, for example-set the stage for a different way of thinking about students. A hardened environment frames students not as learners but as potential threats to be policed, controlled, and feared. This is particularly true when it comes to the ultimate target-hardening strategy: arming teachers. How might armed teachers think differently about their roles and relationships with students?

Finally, we need to think more about the array of ethical questions that security practices present. To what extent should student expression be monitored? Should schools hire private companies to track students' threatening statements and other activity on social media? To what extent do we owe students a degree of privacy? These ethical questions expose possible conflict between security practices and the civic goals of schools.

We want students to learn how to act autonomously and responsibly. Is this educational aim compatible, though, with an environment where we closely monitor and police every student statement and action? Or should we try instead to construct spaces for student freedom, space for students to practice acting with moral responsibility and according to their own reasons?

We do not have all the answers, but we do have research indicating that some school security measures are correlated with undesirable, and sometimes harmful, outcomes for students, staff, and the school environment. It's important to emphasize the correlational nature of this research and note that it does not demonstrate a causal relationship, but the results do raise red flags.

For instance, researchers have found that students and staff in schools that employ various security measures report experiencing higher levels of fear. Students say they feel less safe in schools with visible security measures, a finding that would indicate a potential challenge to the learning environment. Researchers have noted similar findings for schools that employ SROs: students report a greater sense of fear over their safety; a more disruptive or disordered school environment; and a greater likelihood of being arrested.

The possibility that security technology adversely affects school environments is most troublesome in urban schools, where school security technologies are adopted with greater frequency. The zerotolerance discipline policies that arose in the 1990s, partly in response to the school shootings of that decade, led to widespread use of suspension and expulsion-a phenomenon that many researchers believe has had a demonstrably negative impact, particularly on students of color.

The unfavorable outcomes associated with target hardening are further correlated with lower levels of community involvement and a weaker sense of trust within schools. Studies have found that parents are less likely to become formally involved (for instance, by volunteering in the classroom or chaperoning field trips) in schools that incorporate security technologies. Student participation in extracurricular activities is also lower. Further, the use of target-hardening strategies is associated with less student trust in teachers and administrators.

The troubling connections also extend to measures of student academic success. Visible school-security technologies, particularly in high schools in lower-income communities, are associated with decreased educational attainment and aspirations.

As noted above, there is no evidence that the presence of security technologies causes a negative school environment. But even in schools where the undesirable environment precedes and prompts the adoption of the security practices, we cannot be sure that the target hardening is not making the school climate worse.

These red flags would be less worrisome if we could point to demonstrable gains in student safety through the target-hardening approach, but few studies have addressed this connection. Randy Borum of the University of South Florida and his colleagues, in a systematic review of the literature, conclude, "Using surveillance systems, metal detectors, and access control devices, school administrators have made numerous attempts to enhance safety, although there is little empirical research available to evaluate these practices."

What, then, is a sensible approach to school safety and security? The prevention of school shootings is not a complete mystery: We have many examples of school shootings that have been averted. One commonality among many is that students and families communicated with the school about their security concerns; they felt they could approach the school if they suspected a student was troubled and threatening, and the school would respond appropriately.

In Ripon, WI, a student reported to school authorities another student's intention to shoot eight specific students. In Hilliard, OH, a student overheard a classmate discussing plans to execute a school shooting and reported it to the SRO-the plans included a diagram of the attack, a list of the weapons, and a plan to draw in other students. In Frederick County, MD, a father reported to school authorities that his daughter was planning to attack a school, and authorities later discovered the girl had acquired a shotgun and made detailed plans. In all of these cases, it seems that serious incidents were avoided via open communication between schools, students, parents, and community members.

As school leaders think about how they can harden schools against attack, they should also consider how they can further develop relationships of trust that allow for open and honest communication. The greatest benefit of this trust-building approach is that its "side effects" are likely to support the educational mission of schools.

The target-hardening approach sends messages of fear, insecurity, and mistrust, and there is reason to suspect that this has a negative impact on the educational mission. An approach that emphasizes schools as communities that listen, build trust, and provide open channels of communication, in contrast, is likely to benefit the educational mission. Trust is a core element, not only of safe schools but also of effective schools. Safety and success go hand in hand.

One productive convergence of trust-building and target-hardening approaches is seen in the use of threat-assessment teams, a promising trend in school security. Threat assessment has been recommended by the FBI, the Secret Service, and the Department of Education. Under this approach, teams of school personnel, law enforcement officers, and social workers assess threatening student behavior to determine the nature and severity of the threat.

This differs from "profiling" because it is based on a student's own threatening behavior, not a generic outline of social background and personality traits. Threat assessment-designed to distinguish between serious and non-serious threats-helps authorities avoid overreacting and under-reacting. Thus, it reduces the need for automatic long-term suspension or expulsion for threatening behavior. It formalizes the communication that should already exist in a good school, using a team-based approach to identify threats and to determine what troubled students might need in terms of help and support. This type of security practice seems to contribute to the educational mission of schools rather than work against it.

Educators should also think about how the school climate and culture contribute to the possibility of school shootings and work to change those factors. Reading detailed accounts of school shootings provides clues about what schools could be doing differently. In the early 1990s, the sociologist Katherine Newman led a team of researchers in a study of school shootings since 1970. Their report shone a light on the perennial social competition among teens in the school environment, which Newman termed the "status tournament of adolescence." Some school practices intensify this competition. Think of the prominence of sports in American schools, with the tryouts, rankings, and sorting that go along with it. Think, too, of the teenage fixation on popularity and the common practice of anointing "kings" and "queens" at proms and homecoming dances. School shooters often report feeling like the losers of these status tournaments, and this disappointment sometimes turns to anger against the school environment, as was apparently so in the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado (1999), East Carter High School in Kentucky (1993), and Westside Middle School in Arkansas (1998). Instead of fostering competition, schools might look for ways to increase students' sense of belonging.

We do not mean to imply that target hardening is never the appropriate response to school shootings. In some situations, such practices maybe necessary. What is crucial is that schools remain aware of the potential negative impact of such practices and weigh them closely against the educational mission. At the same time, educators should embrace the idea that school safety is first and foremost a matter of school community: an issue of the trust and communication that exists, and of the sense of belonging that schools can foster to counteract the status tournament of adolescence. The practices that work in one school may not in another. School and community leaders should take a careful look at their own school environment and decide on methods that could create not only a secure setting, but also a caring one.

Instead of simply hardening schools against attack, educators should focus on building school environments characterized by mutual trust, active listening, respect for student voices and expression, cooperativeness, and caring relationships with and among students. These measures not only make schools safer, they also make schools better.

Copyright of Education Digest is the property of Prakken Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Does "target hardening" do more harm than good? When confronted with the horror of school shootings, we face a dilemma. Naturally, we are deeply troubled by such incidents. The tragedies are so sad and profound-for the families, schools, surrounding communities, and the nation as a whole-that it is difficult to ignore these events as statistical white noise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Police stand guard at the entrance of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High on Thursday in Parkland, Fla. (Cristobal Herrera/European Pressphoto Agency)

So far this year, there have been at least seven school shootings in the United States. That's more than one a week, more school shootings than many countries have ever had. Last month, for example, a 15-year-old killed two of his peers (and injured 18 others) at his high school in Kentucky.

This is not an anomaly. The United States is suffering from a gun-violence epidemic, one that has been spilling into schools.

Since 2000, there have been more than 188 shootings at schools and universities, my colleague Philip Bump estimates. (It's hard to cite a definitive number, because the federal government does not study gun violence in the United States. The National Rifle Association has opposed any measure to fund research or accounting of America's gun epidemic.)

More than 200 students have been killed. At least 200 more have been injured.

Europeans had school shootings, too. Then they did something about it.

But one statistic truly points out how unusual the problem is.

A couple of years ago, the Academy for Critical Incident Analysis collected data on school violence around the world. They took a broad look at incidents where someone was killed, or a murder was attempted and charted every one that had two or more victims. (Researchers left out "single homicides, off-campus homicides, killings caused by government actions, militaries, terrorists or militants." So, incidents like this one, where a U.S. airstrike in Syria accidentally hit a school and market and killed 30, are not included.)

Between 2000 and 2010, it recorded 57 incidents in 36 countries.

Half those incidents - 28 - occurred in the United States.

That's right. In U.S. schools, there was as much violence as schools in:

That's all the more shocking when you consider that in 2010, the United States had about 309 million residents. The population of the other countries totaled 3.8 billion. It's worth noting, too, that 13 of those countries had never suffered a school massacre.

Everyone knows Americans own more guns than residents of any other country. But why?

Violence in U.S. schools is much more likely be carried out using a gun, too. As Quartz explained about the study:

In the vast majority of U.S. killings, perpetrators used guns. By comparison, China - with the second-greatest number of incidents - saw 10 mass killings, but none involving firearms. Germany saw three mass shootings; Finland saw two. Thirteen other countries each saw one incident with at least one person being wounded or killed; in the rest nobody was reported as hurt.

There's evidence, too, that school violence is declining in other places. As my colleague explained this morning, "in Europe, there hasn't been a major high-casualty gun attack on a campus in almost a decade."

That's because Americans have a disproportionate number of guns (at least 300 million, about one per person), especially handguns and semiautomatic weapons. (A bullet from an AR-15 rifle, which the alleged shooter used in the Florida attack Wednesday, can penetrate a steel helmet from five hundred yards. As the New Yorker put it: "When fired from close range at civilians who aren't wearing body armor, the bullets from an AR-15 don't merely penetrate the human body - they tear it apart. It 'looks like a grenade went off in there,' Peter Rhee, a trauma surgeon at the University of Arizona, told Wired.")

Also, as my WorldViews colleague Rick Noack points out, we're much more lax about who can buy and keep weapons, and it's harder for children and adults to access mental health services.

Of course, the United States is not the only country struggling with school violence. But it's the only country where there are so many guns, and where violence against students - children mostly - is almost routine.

AD

AD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analysis | The one number that shows America's problem with school shootings is unique

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
So far this year, there have been at least seven school shootings in the United States. That's more than one a week, more school shootings than many countries have ever had. Last month, for example, a 15-year-old killed two of his peers (and injured 18 others) at his high school in Kentucky.

# data[].attributes.body
I like how you've reminded yourself to look into other sources, but I would also like to see at least 3 or 4 more sources under "Problems" and 1 or 2 more under "Solutions". I would also want to see a little more engagement with your sources, such as posting notes and ideas on here. 5/10

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Assault weapons ban

Would it work? Likely.

Though some experts doubt the results of assault weapon bans, many see it as an appropriate first step to keeping the highly lethal weapons beyond reach for good and bad actors alike.

The last federal ban on assault weapons was passed by Congress in 1994 to combat mass shootings, which fell significantly over the 10 years the law was in place.

Though lawmakers didn't specifically define an "assault weapon," they made 18 weapons illegal to manufacture, which did not affect the assault firearms already owned by Americans.

After the law expired, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania expressed in a federally funded report that the ban's overall effect was unimpressive.

"Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement," said the report, which the Department of Justice commissioned.

"Bans on assault weapons can both reduce the mayhem from and perhaps even reduce the frequency of these lethal crimes," Professor John J. Donohue III, a lead researcher on mass shootings at Stanford University said. "We see from diaries of the mass shooters that they see the AR-15 or some such as the vindication of their manhood and power and a vehicle for addressing their perceived grievances."

Fixing the "gun culture that steeps troubled and ineffectual men in this notion of redemption through violence and then makes the most deadly weaponry available to them" would have a direct effect on the rates of mass shootings, Donohue said.

High-capacity magazine ban

Would it work? Likely.

Banning high-capacity magazines seems likely to significantly decrease the number of fatalities a shooter could inflict in a single attack, and increase chances for bystanders to intervene when the shooter is caught off guard, according to experts.

"Nearly every mass shooting illustrates that large capacity magazines can increase the death toll and that forcing a shooter to reload more frequently can provide opportunities for counter-attack by those around," Donohue said.

Donohue added: "Accordingly, a ban on high capacity magazines is absolutely essential if one wants to reduce the loss of life from active shooter scenarios, and bans on assault weapons can both reduce the mayhem from and perhaps even reduce the frequency of these lethal crimes."

Funding CDC research into gun violence

Would it work? It depends.

Organizations including American Public Health Association and the American Medical Association have begun characterizing gun violence as a public-health problem to emphasize the research's critical role in developing data on gun ownership and violence that could be used to inform policies that would cut down on gun violence and mass shootings.

In 1996, congressional Republicans passed the Dickey amendment to pressure the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention away from conducting public health research on gun violence.

Though lawmakers have since clarified it was not a total ban on federal funding for gun-related research, the US spends less money researching gun violence than it does on almost any other leading cause of death.

That's because of "incredibly poor leadership decisions" from lawmakers, Dr. Stephen Markowiak, a general surgery research fellow and mass shootings researcher at the University of Toledo said.

"The reality is, we could solve this problem if we wanted to," he said. "We have these excellent resources available to our country that have a decades-old history of solving public-health crises."

Universal background checks

Getty Images

Would it work? Likely.

Currently, laws only require background checks from licensed firearms dealers.

Research shows states that require background checks on all gun sales had 35% fewer gun deaths per capita between 2009 and 2012 and research from the nonpartisan Rand Corporation estimates universal background checks could prevent 1,100 homicides per year.

"A first line of defense would ensure that all felons and anyone with a demonstrated record of violence or misuse of guns should be prohibited from any form of gun possession," Professor Donohue said. "Much more effort needs to be made to ensure that these individuals are recorded into the background check system to prevent future purchases and their current weapons are taken away."

Arguments from critics include that reform and enforcement of the thousands of current gun laws would be more effective at controlling violence and that background checks are an invasion of privacy. Lawmakers have sought to quell privacy fears around background checks, emphasizing that they wouldn't create a federal registry and that no policies have allowed federal agencies access to records on those who pass background checks.

Gun violence restraining orders or red flag laws

Bombardier via Compfight cc

Would it work? Likely.

Red flag laws allow family members and law enforcement to file Extreme Risk Protection Orders and restrict or temporarily remove a person's access to firearms when their behavior suggests that they pose a violent threat to themselves and others.

More states are adopting these laws as perpetrators of mass shootings are regularly proven to have displayed warning signs of deadly behavior before they attacked.

According to analysis from Everytown for Gun Safety, of the 156 mass shootings that occurred between 2009 and 2016, 54% were related to domestic or family violence. This strong connection suggests that domestic violence is a likely predictor of violent behavior.

Scott Karson, treasurer of the New York State Bar Association, wrote "while numerous factors intertwine to lead an individual from hitting a spouse to shooting up a public venue, or from acting out at home to shooting up a school, the often lethal combination of domestic violence and easy access to guns should not be ignored."

President Donald Trump won favor with some gun control advocates after he voiced support for the orders, which some gun rights advocates see as an opportunity for guns to be confiscated, though those who have their guns taken away can challenge the order in court.

Arming teachers

Would it work? Not likely.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll from earlier this year found that 42% of Americans said allowing teachers to carry guns could have deterred the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

However, research overwhelmingly concludes that more guns equal more deaths. A study of North American and European adolescent students found across the board that when there are more weapons in class, there are more hospitalizations and more medical treatment needed.

Researchers in that study concluded that carrying guns, knives, and other arms created a higher likelihood of physical violence and injuries.

There is no evidence that arming teachers, despite their level of skill and comfort with firearms, would be an effective method to confront the rates of mass shootings.

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

S tatistics show states with stricter gun policies and fewer guns have lower rates of gun violence in private residences and public areas.

Active shooter drills

Are they effective? Not significantly.

Active shooter drills first began after the 1999 Columbine shooting, but a 2016 federal report found that nearly two-thirds of school districts nationwide conduct active shooter drills amid increased rates of mass shootings.

Despite the widespread practice, proof that drills have any effect on mass shootings in schools is hard to come by, and many educators argue the realistic drills are so frightening that they cause needless trauma to students of all ages.

"It's good to do emergency drills, but active shooters are not a drill anyone should have to do," Colorado math teacher Meredith Corley told The Atlantic about the post-Columbine practice. "It re-traumatizes kids who have experienced violence. Getting the kids settled back into the work of learning after lockdown drills is a nightmare. That mindset has no place in a learning environment."

Drills also prove to not only be largely ineffective but also dangerous when the shooter is a student and would be familiar with procedures.

Such was the case with Nicholas Cruz, who perpetrated a massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Cruz seemed to be aware that gunshots would trigger a lockdown, and pulled the fire alarm minutes before the dismissal bell, confusing the lockdown procedure.

Only some classrooms fully maintained the lockdown despite the alarm and banging on the door. Cruz killed 12 inside the school, in addition to three outside on school grounds.

Having students, faculty, and staff report potential threats

Would it work? Likely.

Having faculty, staff, and students tuned into the school climate and report alarming behaviors that allude to a student's potential desire to commit a violent attack would nurture a school's social and emotional environment and contribute to preventing mass shootings.

Signs of potentially dangerous students can include written, spoken, or even drawn hints from students about violent intentions or fantasies. Such clues could include threats against the school or other students, posts online, or lists of names of certain classmates.

A pilot program in Germany that was instituted after a spike in school shootings trained teachers and students to look out for what they call "leaking" behaviors that might indicate that a student is planning a violent attack.

Within seven months of the program, at least 19 high-risk cases were identified across the country, and those students were offered help.

Such actions might have prevented attacks like the mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida high school by Nikolas Cruz, who had posted threatening messages on his Instagram account about killing himself and others before the attack.

"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," Rutgers Graduate School of Education Professor Matthew Mayer told NPR. "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."

Banning violent video games

Would it work? Not likely.

Violent video games are an easy target for figures like parent groups, Tipper Gore, and President Trump who have tried to assign blame incidents like mass shootings by young perpetrators on violence in media, but research has found no evidence that violent movies and video games encourage real-world attacks.

The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 in 2011 against a law based on the assertion that violent video games promote real-life violence in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association.

"Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively," the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority decision. "Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media."

Dr. Patrick Markey, an associate professor of psychology at Villanova University, told Business Insider earlier this year that two studies he conducted found that on average, a smaller proportion of school shooters like violent video games than is found in the general population.

"About 20% of school shooters showed interest in violent video games, whereas the average high school student is about 70%," Markey said. "So what we find is the actual reality is the reverse of what we tend to think, that the school shooters tend to play less violent video games than the average high school student."
Source: The New York Times

'Hardening schools'

Would it work? Not likely.

Research has shown that boosting security at schools with armed security, metal detectors, and reducing access to buildings has little to no effect on the likelihood of a school shooting when compared to more preventative and early intervention measures.

Though security companies have lunged at the opportunity to outfit schools, educators worry the effort and money diverted to additional security measures would take away from proven methods of preventing mass shootings, including mental health counseling.

More: Features Mass Shootings Gun Control Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to stop shootings in America: 10 strategies proposed to stop gun violence, and how likely they are to work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Assault weapons ban Would it work? Likely. Though some experts doubt the results of assault weapon bans, many see it as an appropriate first step to keeping the highly lethal weapons beyond reach for good and bad actors alike.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Keeping Our Schools Safe: A Plan to Stop Mass Shootings and End Gun Violence in American Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
America's gun violence epidemic, in the form of mass shootings, homicides, assaults, unintentional discharges, and firearm suicides, has been infecting America's schools. The failure of our leaders to address the root causes of school gun violence from all angles is having lasting consequences for millions of American children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The fixation on school shootings ignores the fact that kids are much, much safer at school than they are at home.

Every week, somewhere in America, a gun is fired in a school. That's led to frenzied news coverage and dire punditry, but almost no perspective or context. It's understandable, then, that nearly six in 10 students and parents worry about a shooting at their school. This rage, however, is generating destructive and counterproductive responses that don't match the scope of the problem.

Take former Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who after last month's shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, called for students to boycott schools until laws are passed to make them safer. That would mean more students at home, where the risks of gun murder are nine times higher. What's getting lost in all the justified outrage about school shootings is that 99.8 percent of America's 15,000 annual gun homicides occur in places other than schools. To better make his point, then, students should stay in schools-among the safest places from shootings-and refuse to leave in protest of gun carnage throughout American society.

Let's review the reality young people face, in context. Over the last year, 63 shootings in or around schools have killed 32 students, including 14 in Parkland and eight in Santa Fe. However, in that same timespan, around 1,200 American children ages five to 18 were murdered by guns, according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control. More than 500 of these school-age kids died in gun murders in homes and another 350 on streets and in other public areas. These tragedies also deserve horror and outrage-yet, they are often met with silence.

Actually, America's 130,000 elementary and secondary schools, attended by over 50 million students every school day, are by far among the safest places from gun violence. At 2018 rates, the average student would have to go to school every day for 2,000 years before risking a gun being fired there, and 5,000 years before risking a deadly shooting. Walking America's school hallways and campuses is like walking the streets of Copenhagen in terms of the risk of gun violence.

Just like the irrational mindset of those who fear flying but don't hesitate driving to the airport, this is a case of misplaced panic. Media outlets and political leaders are supposed to put the threats we face in their appropriate context based on government agencies and academic scholars who "do the math." Instead, American authorities are shamefully stoking fear toward schools and young people. And the ill-informed talking heads on cable news don't help.

Furthermore, no one seems to be raising the issue that in America, unlike the rest of the industrialized world, one-fifth of all children grow up in abject poverty. Among the poor, gun violence is 20 to 40 times higher than it is in the rest of society.

Most mass shootings, as Everytown for Gun Safety has found, are related to domestic or family violence-and a quarter of the victims are children. So, instead of asking teenagers why "their" peers commit shootings, parents and other grownups should have to ask the same question about "our" peers.

Gun violence has been moving steadily upward in age. Today, after young people have cut their gun deaths by half over the last 25 years, just 8 percent of gun homicides and 6 percent of total gun deaths (homicides, suicides, accidents) involve children of school age. More than half of all shooting deaths now are of people 40 and older. A gun isn't necessarily safer in the hands of a 47-year-old than it is in the hands of a 17-year-old.

There are worthwhile legislative fixes, but not panaceas. Reducing poverty is paramount. Background checks and related controls offer promise for decreasing gun suicide rates and domestic killings. Bans on high-capacity weapons would somewhat reduce mass shootings over time.

However, the larger crisis is that in a culture with no solution to upwards of 300,000 gun killings and 3 million gun injuries over the last decade, Americans still refuse to confront basic, disturbing facts about gun violence. We continue to fixate only on the small fraction of shootings that allow us to indulge in finger-pointing and blame-the-kids rhetoric. So long as we keep distorting facts, solutions to America's gun epidemic will remain not just difficult, but impossible.

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works-and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.
Yes, I'll make a donation Please enable JavaScript to view the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Americans are getting the school shooting problem all wrong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The fixation on school shootings ignores the fact that kids are much, much safer at school than they are at home. Every week, somewhere in America, a gun is fired in a school. That's led to frenzied news coverage and dire punditry, but almost no perspective or context.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that moving forward, we'll need to revise our thesis statement to be more specific and concise.

You only posted one documentation page on here. If the rest are completed, please upload them so we can see them. If they are not, let's try working together in class or homeroom to work on those.

# data[].attributes.body
Moving forward, let's work on making your thesis statement more specific and concise.