What’s driving the rise in school shootings?
Homicide rates are down in America, but school shootings are up. What’s going on? What’s driving this?
Some say it’s guns.
I have an hunch that I think deserves some study.
Back in the 1970s we had 30 school shootings with a population of about 216 million.
Today we have a population of 320 million. If we had the same ratio of shootings to population today, we’d have 44 shootings total in the decade between 2010 and 2020. But from 2000 – 2010, we had 60. And since 2010 (if my data is correct, and it appears that’s a big if–see Edit 2 at bottom) we’ve had 146. That’s a 300% increase!
If we want to solve the school shooting problem in the long term, we need to figure out what’s fueling it. One way to get at this is to ask what’s changed since the 1970s and 80s when the rates were lower.
Are we killing at a higher rate in general? Is that what’s changed?
No. FiveThirtyEight reports homicide rates have dropped. Here’s their chart.
We’re down.
But school shootings are up. Way up!
Clearly, what’s driving school shootings doesn’t seem to be the same thing that’s driving general homicide rates. Otherwise, the rates would be moving in the same direction, but they’re not.
Is it gun ownership rates?
According to the Washington Post, ownership rates are at their lowest in quite some time. Here’s their chart.
This means that if general gun ownership rates were a major factor, then we’d be seeing school shooting rates fall. We’re not.
Furthermore, some of the US states with the highest gun ownership rates have the lowest murder and school shooting rates. (For those wanting to know more about guns, magazines, the definition of an assault rifle, gun control, etc. see Larry Correia’s informational post below.)
Now, it could be that while overall gun ownership rates have fallen, ownership in certain population segments has risen. That’s something to look at. But when looking at the overall ownership rate, we don’t find an answer.
Is there anything else to study? Anything else that might be different now?
Here’s my hunch–it’s the internet. My hunch is that an unintended consequence of social media and the ease of finding certain types of content have facilitated the development of the mindset and ability of certain youth to commit these crimes.
We do things when we are prompted to take a specific action and we have both the ability and desire necessary to take that action. So action requires three things:
- A prompt
- The ability
- The desire
If the rates are going up, then one or more of those things have changed. Either more kids are being prompted to take this specific action, we’ve made it easier for them to do it, or we’ve increased their desire to do it. Or some combination of those three.
Let’s see if the internet might be a factor.
First, from what I’ve read, it seems a lot of these kids feel like outcasts and seem to be seeking some kind of revenge. Does social media foster and facilitate more bullying and isolation and, therefore, more resentment? Has it increased the desire to conduct such attacks?
Second, it is dramatically easier for kids to learn how to do all sorts of stuff now. Back in the 70s and 80s, it was hard to learn about the methods and tactics of crime, firearms, etc. Now, if you want to learn how to shoot, scope a place out, plan an attack, do all sorts of things, you can watch YouTube videos on it. Has the easy accessibility of how-to instruction facilitated the ability to plan and carry out these attacks?
Third, back in the 70s and 80s you had limited programming. Gilligan’s Island, Brady Bunch, The Love Boat, The Donny and Marie Show, Lawrence Welk, etc. They all fostered good-citizen values. Today, kids have easy access to all sorts of crap. Violent rape porn. Evil games like Blue Whale that give challenges to the player, and the last is to kill yourself. Are there certain types of programming on the internet that foster a violent mindset? That prompt these very actions and makes them seem like a good alternative?
Fourth, look at how well political conversations go on Facebook. Chat rooms, blogs, etc.–we all know they foster more incivility than when you talk in person. Does our social media, by its very structure, anonymity, etc. foster a more anger-filled approach to disagreements? Has it prompted, even trained, more kids to behave this way?
Is one of the unintended consequences of the internet and social media a rise in school shootings?
I’m not saying it’s the only part of the puzzle. But I do think it’s worth studying. We need a long-term solution.
At the same time, we need something now while that long-term solution is being researched and implemented. One of the best ideas I’ve seen so far to stop the killings is the one mentioned here.
Such people are screened, trained, and on-site. They can respond immediately. Plus it’s voluntary. If you’re a teacher that doesn’t want to do this, you don’t have to. Plus this doesn’t add security guards to schools. Nothing changes at the school until the shooter shows up, and suddenly there are half a dozen, dozen, two dozen deputies immediately there.
I think at our tiny 1A middle school, there are probably 6-8 people who would do this, including my wife. The teachers know the kids, know where other teachers are likely to be, know the place like the back of their hands. We know security deters threats. I can’t see anything but positives.
I don’t like the fact that we have to contemplate this. I want to go back to my youth in Bountiful, Utah where this never happened. Maybe we can get back to that type of a society. Until then we need an immediate, practical, and effective solution. This seems like a good part of a multi-approach solution.
But what’s the long-term solution?
I wonder if has to do with the internet.
Is any organization seriously studying this?
Do you see anything else that might have increased the prompts for this specific action, the ability to plan and conduct attacks, or the motivation to do so?
Edit 1 – gun retention
On Facebook today, a former deputy sheriff I know and respect was asked “Should teachers carry guns?” His answer: “No. Weapon retention is never even considered when politicians and others come up with that. Imagine some big, unfriendly student disarming a teacher during some classroom issue. Instant problem.”
This is a good point to raise.
I didn’t think of it. It’s clear none of the teacher defense plans are complete without it.
But is it a show stopper?
First of all, how big a risk is this? How many student-teacher scuffles do we have in grades 1-6 where the teacher is overpowered by a third-grader? How about in middle school? I’m sure the risk is higher in high school.
But just because there’s a risk doesn’t always mean you shouldn’t do something. Male and female agents and officers are trained in retention. My question is whether such retention training is ineffective? Should officers not carry guns because of this?
If it is effective, then it seems to me that if you’re trained, you’re trained. A big senior boy has just as much chance to disarm a trained cop as a trained non-cop of the same size and strength.
This is another reason I like the suggestion of the sheriff above. It’s not just any teacher that would do this. They need to be screened and trained. They’re deputized. I could see them doing training on a frequent basis. Something goes down at at school, and you immediately have 6-8 trained deputies on site. Maybe a dozen or more. Is that not a game changer?
It’s good to identify risks. But what would reduce the risks identified? Could we reduce them to acceptable levels? It’s a question that needs answering.
Edit 2 – is the “rise” due to bad data?
Sources
- FiveThirtyEight reports on homicide rates
- The Washington Post on gun ownership rates
- The Atlantic on how hard it is to get good stats on these things (frustrating!)
- The Washington Post on the variety we see in mass shootings.
- Wikipedia on school shootings
- Wikipedia on murder rates by state in the USA
- Wikipedia on murder rates by country–however, it appears how the data is reported by country and what’s counted, even between countries like the UK and USA, make is almost impossible to get apples to apples.
- B.J. Fogg’s model of what’s required for a behavior to occur
- Larry Correia’s informational post on guns and gun control
I was on the path of social media, but I hadn’t considered the ease of information from the internet – and you also need to consider the use of mobile phones and addiction to those devices – one only need look at a group of youth sitting together, staring at their phones vs talking to each other 5 ft away
Combined with a new culture that promotes and glorifies victim hood (bullying, sexual orientation or identity, minorities of race or religion) – almost to a point that you need to be a victim of something to have value
Then the hyper news sensationalizing each shooting gives a shooter a false identity of stardom (attention, albeit negative) — which then prompts copy cats who are seeking an identity feeling like outcasts
The video game industry bears some ownership – with 1st person shooter games and gang violence games like Grand Theft Auto we role play and desensitize – and then glorify and reward violent acts
The breakdown of the family unit with the increased divorce rates, and single parent homes, often fatherless rearing of young men – 30 years ago “my baby daddy was an un imaginable common term.
Then look at the uptick of ADD medications and anti depression drugs that have clear black label warnings for youth – yet are distributed like candy from a Pez dispenser
Bringing it all together it’s a perfect storm – my shock is that the public acts surprised, it seems almost like a recipe for the outcomes we currently face
Clearly lots of things to study to identify what actually are the main factors.
The best part of your suggestions is that everyone doesn’t need to agree to try them out. Just a few school districts get on board. My guess is that those districts would never be targeted in a shooting, because shooters usually aren’t stupid. So that would be a statistical support, but not a slam dunk, that it works. If, however, an ignorant shooter ever happened to try something in one of those districts, my guess is you would have a lot of people singing the praises of the policy of deputizing teachers.
As for retention, one of the biggest priorities of the deputy program should be keeping secret from the students who the deputies are, and keeping concealed weapons concealed. If no one ever knows the gun is there, no one can try to grab it.
Terrific comments, Keith. Good points all.
Your point about retention (in secret) is spot-on. Good comment.
Terrific article, John. Springboard for good, rational, reasoned conversation about what -I think all of us agree- is a complex subject; not only as to underlying causative factors but thereby possible solutions.
My thanks to you, Keith, and Mark for not devolving into rhetoric and actually having a sane conversation about this landmine subject: A roomful of folks like you guys might actually get something worthwhile done. 🙂
Thanks, Steve.
By John Brown |, thanks so much for the post.Much thanks again. Really Cool.
If you had a hunch the news system was rigged, and you couldn”t put your finger on it, this might solve the puzzle: