157
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Many Americans think of school shootings as mass casualty events involving an adolescent with an assault-style weapon. But a new study says that most recent school shootings orchestrated by teenagers do not fit that image — and they are often related to community violence.

The study, published Monday in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, analyzed 253 school shootings carried out by 262 adolescents in the US between 1990 and 2016.

It found that these adolescents were responsible for only a handful of mass casualty shootings, defined as those involving four or more gunshot fatalities. About half of the shootings analyzed — 119 — involved at least one death. Among the events, seven killed four or more people.

A majority of the shootings analyzed also involved handguns rather than assault rifles or shotguns, and they were often the result of “interpersonal disputes,” according to the researchers from University of South Carolina and University of Florida.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

How about changing a community's culture so bang-bang shooty-shooty isn't the first response to checks notes disrespect.

[-] farcaster@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Or we could just not have more guns than people, like everywhere else in the rest of the first world. But "fuck you I've got mine" is the unofficial motto of the United States of America after all.

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

More like fuck you I barley have shit and I'm not giving up my ability to protect myself from anyone that might be coming for it.

[-] farcaster@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Killing someone to prevent them from stealing your stuff may well land you in prison. Guns cause a lot of misery in this country.

I get it btw. But still. I think we'd all be better off with fewer guns :\

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 points 9 months ago

I should probably clarify that I don't actually own a gun. My previous comment is just the attitude I typically see from people who do. I don't live in an area with a high crime rate that would necessitate one and I'd be far more likely to use it on myself before I was ever in a self defense situation. That being said if I still lived in the town I grew up where there were break ins every few weeks many of which included assaults I would have one for sure.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I get it btw.

Get what? That if you can't fight and don't own a gun then you're at the mercy of the police you hate to protect you?

[-] farcaster@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I've lived in a few different countries, and they have many of the same problems as the US, but there's of course far fewer guns, and those places are safer. That difference in safety is really palpable.

Without all these guns, and the associated culture of violence and fear, perhaps American policing in general would be less violent. It's something I've wondered about.

I am sympathetic to the desire for self-defense, arms as a safeguard against tyranny, etc. But I personally don't think it's worth this.

So it's a complex issue, but I don't think the 2A is a net positive. At least not anymore.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

and they have many of the same problems as the US

Really? What nations are as polarizing as the US? Seems to me the vast majority of nations that aren't as violent as the US are not nearly as diverse or suffer from the same extent of wealth inequality.

Sweden, even with its anti-gun laws, has become the most dangerous scandinavian country by a longshot because they're now dealing with racial problems the US has had to face for generations.

[-] farcaster@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Plenty of diversity and wealth inequality problems in Europe. Just look up the stats if you're really interested.

And these issues are noticeable as you say in Sweden for example. And in Germany, and France, and Spain, etc.

But I don't see how proliferating guns in Europe would help make these places safer. I would imagine letting everyone have guns would see Sweden's murder rate go up. Maybe another 5x to 10x and it would reach US per capita levels. Progress?

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Sweden's problems aren't the same as Germany or France.

But I don’t see how proliferating guns in Europe would help make these places safer.

That's because you're ignoring all the nations who have outlawed guns yet have worse gun violence than the US because of their culture. You cherrypick evidence to support your agenda and ignore evidence that goes against it.

Some would call that 'biased,' but that would make them a rational person.

[-] farcaster@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You know what never mind, you seem to think guns in the US are generally a good thing and think they're generally bad. We'll probably never agree. Hope you never have to use your guns mate.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

changing a community's culture

It's never worked in the past; but so much of America's culture is predicated on winning the lottery, so sure you go ahead.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

It’s never worked in the past

That's objectively false, but you're too far down your tribalistic rabbit hole to understand that.

this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
157 points (91.5% liked)

News

22907 readers
3905 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS