Locked Down After A School Shooting

Gun violence is a significant public healthcare challenge that continues to pose a problem in the US. Despite the number of regulations and policy recommendations in place, the burden is still prevalent, affecting over 40,000 Americans annually with the majority of these being gun suicides and homicides. For instance, in 2022, the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions reported at least 48,204 deaths attributed to gun violence. 27,032 of these deaths were suicides, 19,651 homicides, 463 unintentional discharges, 643 from legal interventions, and 415 were undetermined. Gun violence also disproportionately affects young people, with children and adolescents aged 1 to 19 bearing the brunt of this violence. In 2022 for example, 2,526 deaths in this population group were caused by gun violence. Gun violence also causes a lot of fear, anxiety, and stress among children and adolescents. Gun violence is attributed to a number of factors such as socioeconomic disadvantage, availability and access, storage practices, mental health problems, and structural and institutional racism. Considering the negative effects of gun violence in communities, there is a need for comprehensive measures that can address the problem. Regulatory reforms that emphasize more on strict measures such as carrying out background checks, gun control laws, and policy changes can help to address gun violence. Measures can also be implemented at the community level with different community interventions that have been proven to have positive effects. Such measures can help to tackle the complex factors that increase the risk of gun violence in communities. The aim of this review is to explore the growing burden of firearm violence and the impact it is having on the communities affected. The review will explore the statistical trends of gun violence over the past five years by looking at the recent number of firearm cases. The review will also explore measures that can be put in place to address the problem including stricter laws and community interventions.

Firearm violence and school shootings remain a significant public health problem. This study aimed to examine how publicly available data from all 50 states might improve our understanding of the situation, firearm type, and demographics surrounding school shootings. School shootings occurring in the US for 53 years ending in May 2022 were analyzed, using primary data files that were obtained from the Center for Homeland Defense and Security. Data analyzed included situation, injury, firearm type, and demographics of victims and shooters. We compared the ratio of fatalities per wounded after stratifying by type of weapon. Rates (among children) of school shooting victims, wounded, and fatalities per 1 million population were stratified by year and compared over time. A total of 2,056 school shooting incidents involving 3,083 victims were analyzed: 2,033 children, 5 to 17 years, and 1,050 adults, 18 to 74 years. Most victims (77%) and shooters (96%) were male individuals with a mean age of 18 and 19 years, respectively. Of the weapons identified, handguns, rifles, and shotguns accounted for 84%, 7%, and 4%, respectively. Rifles had a higher fatality-to-wounded ratio (0.45) compared with shooters using multiple weapons (0.41), handguns (0.35), and shotguns (0.30). Linear regression analysis identified a significant increase in the rate of school shooting victims (β = 0.02, p = 0.0003), wounded (β = 0.01, p = 0.026), and fatalities (β = 0.01, p = 0.0003) among children over time. Despite heightened public awareness, the incidence of school shooting victims, wounded, and fatalities among children has steadily and significantly increased over the past 53 years. Understanding the epidemic represents the first step in preventing continued firearm violence in our schools.

There has lately been much interest in the role the liability system might play in reducing firearm deaths. In the past few years, stories of gun violence have entered the national conversation with depressing regularity. Just as regularly, there quickly follow calls for more gun control - now couched in terms of “gun safety”. A new twist on this theme appropriates the language of “responsibility” that insurance companies have traded in for over a century. At the state and federal level, legislatures have introduced bills that would require gun owners to carry liability insurance that would protect third parties from injuries associated with the use of the policyholder’s firearm. The stated aim is to induce a measure of financial responsibility congruent with the risks of firearm ownership. Those risks can be imagined in various ways, and proponents of gun insurance have offered varied rationales for a gun insurance mandate. On its most basic level, gun insurance could provide a source of compensation for victims of gun violence, or their families. At 30,000 or so fatalities a year, the economic toll of gun violence is easily quantified in the billions. Insurance companies, motivated to arm themselves with the data that governments often cannot obtain, will uncover and enforce risk reduction strategies that will mitigate gun violence. These strategies, it is commonly assumed, will turn out to look a lot like the “common-sense” gun safety regulations so regrettably stymied by timid legislators. The costs of this risk reduction program will of course be borne by gun owners themselves, in the form of insurance premia. One can discern a couple different sorts of mechanisms by which this might work. First, insurance might separate “good” gun owners from “bad” gun owners, rewarding the former with discounts or credits for socially cooperative behavior. Properly finetuned, this might place the entire burden of insurance-related gun violence on the shoulders of “bad” gun owners - those who leave loaded handguns in between the cushions of their sofas, easily accessed by small children. Or - of course - those who actually commit gun crimes. On another view, there might not really be any good or bad gun owners. Like pollution, gun violence is an inevitable by-product of gun ownership. While there might be room for insurance to make things safer, there is no moral reason to distinguish among gun owners, who all contribute to the availability of guns in marketplaces legal and otherwise. On this view, a gun anywhere is a threat public safety everywhere; liability insurance premia act as a kind of Pigouvian tax, internalizing at last the costs of gun violence into the long-term price of firearm ownership. The efficacy of this approach is open to question.

Health agencies and professionals must recognize firearm injuries and deaths as a major health hazard and give proper priority and resources to addressing the problem. VioLit summary: OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article by Baker et al. was to assemble broad references to support a thesis that firearms control and regulation were either lacking or poorly implemented. This article was a non-experimental explanation describing how the widespread ownership and use of firearms in American society had a negative impact on public health. METHODOLOGY: The authors followed a nonexperimental review of the literature. FINDINGS/DISCUSSION: Firearms in the United States were reported as second only to motor vehicles in the number of fatal injuries they inflicted. In 1977, firearms were responsible for 32,000 deaths in this country. They were used in two-thirds of all homicides and also provided the most common vehicle of committing suicide in the United States. Specifically, the authors note that firearms were used in more than half of all suicides. The estimated number of nonfatal injuries caused by firearms ranged as high as 100,000 per year in the U.S. and handguns accounted for three-fourths of firearm related homicides. The increasing availability of firearms was believed to be related to increasing incidence of firearm-related injuries. The Federal Gun Control act of 1968 brought a somewhat higher degree of regulation to firearm use and regulation than was previously available. The Federal Gun Control Act made it unlawful to sell a firearm to a person less than 18 years of age or who had been convicted of certain crimes, was a fugitive from justice, unlawfully used controlled substances, or had been adjudicated as a mental defective. Manufacturers and importers of guns were required by the Federal Gun Control Act to be federally licensed and the law mandated keeping records of gun manufacture data as well as specifying a prohibition on the import of nonsporting categories of firearms. AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS: The authors noted that present handgun design maximized the ability to cause serious or fatal injuries with a minimum of effort and planning. They believed the design of handguns should have been regulated to minimize the possibility of inadvertent discharge. Rather than regulation concentrated on the possession and use stages of a firearm's lifecycle more specific regulation of firearms at the manufacturing stage was recommended. This stage would include regulation of both quantities manufactured and product design, and would be more effective in reducing firearm injuries. Also, the authors noted a variety of countermeasures to gun injuries already existed, however they were not being utilized. Specifically, bullets less likely to wound had been developed for police use in crowd control but were not in general use by firearm owners. Finally, the authors recommended that health agencies and professionals recognize firearm deaths and injuries as a major health hazard and acknowledge that higher priorities and resources should be dedicated to addressing the situation. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado) KW - Firearms Ownership KW - Firearms Control KW - Public Health Approach KW - Public Policy KW - Policy Recommendations KW - Legislation KW - Injury Prevention KW - Firearms Injury KW - Firearms Violence KW - Firearms Homicide KW - Violence Prevention KW - Homicide Prevention KW - Firearms Suicide KW - Suicide Prevention KW - Adult Firearms Use KW - Adult Violence KW - Juvenile Firearms Use KW - Juvenile Violence

Gun violence and related risk factors differ for African American and European Americans. However, there may be overlap in the psychosocial and contextual factors with respect to cultural processes related to gun violence in Black and White communities. The purpose of this article is to compare the culture of honor perspective associated with rural and suburban gun violence of European American males in the southern region to the code of the street value system ascribed to the gun violence of African American males in northern urban cities. The cultural values underlying gun violence will be reviewed in terms of cultural origins, family and community support, and ecological evidence. The central question is whether there are sufficient commonalities between the cultural ecology of the two value systems such that one has practice and policy implications for the other. The current analysis of culture-of-honor and code-of-the-street value systems vis-à-vis gun violence reveals several points of overlap in philosophy and function. Implications for policies and practices to prevent gun violence stemming from culture-of-honor and code-of-the-street value systems include (1) psychological interventions to address the perceived threats to the self; (2) neighborhood interventions to promote a sense of collective efficacy among residents; (3) addressing racial and economic inequality; (4) better gun control laws; and (5) media campaigns and interventions designed to change social and cultural norms for violence. It is important to note the pervasiveness of these value systems may vary by ethnicity and race which must be taken into consideration in violence prevention efforts.

On 6 October 2022, a daycare shooting incident happened in Thailand. It is the deadliest mass shooting in Southeast Asian (SEA) countries and one of the many incidents contributing to the global epidemic of firearm‐related preventable violence. Although firearm violence is commonly associated with the United States, it is also a problem worldwide, causing long‐lasting health issues and huge economic burden. This is due to the root causes of firearm violence transcending national boundaries, including socioeconomic landscape, political dynamics, and globalization. Considering these and the major public health impacts of firearm violence, firearm violence should be prioritized as a global health issue. We identified public health challenges related to global firearm violence management: inadequate regulation, lack of official firearm surveillance, and inadequate access to mental health care. In Thailand, there is a gap in gun ownership policies for the civilian and government personnel and a relatively less strict background check compared to other SEA countries. It is crucial for the governments to strengthen their firearm regulations and invest in appropriate public health interventions, including improving access to mental health services and conducting firearm‐related surveillance and culturally sensitive awareness programs. Various public health stakeholders, including healthcare workers and local communities, should be engaged to effectively mitigate future firearm violence.

Gun Violence as an Obstacle to Educational Equality

Gun violence in America was down in 2024, but deaths and injuries incurred during school shootings were up, and incidents of school shootings and mass shootings still remain high, according to a recent report released by Omnilert. Omnilert compiled its annual Gun Violence Statistics for 2024, summarizing gun violence tragedies, and their adverse effects on American life quality and economy.

School violence has increased dramatically over the last decade. There have been many school shootings since the devastating mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. Following each of these, there has been much national debate about gun control laws and mental health funding. While political stakeholders have been in a stalemate over these important issues, schools must develop better solutions for stopping school shootings. This dissertation discussed whether there is a clear profile for a school shooter, which emergency plans are practiced at a school in Massachusetts, and where the responsibility of resolving a school shooting falls. This dissertation addressed the problem of practice through a case study using the emergency management cycle (EMC), focusing on prevention, preparedness, and response from a school staff level. This case study focused on the following research questions: (a) Is it possible to profile and anticipate school shooters in order to prevent shootings? (b) What are the emergency protocols in place at the middle school in Massachusetts that is the focus of this study, and how can they be strengthened? and (c) What is the role of faculty and staff in the resolution of an active shooter situation? The researcher answered these questions through research as well as interviewing a multi-disciplinary selection of faculty and staff at a school in Massachusetts. Participants' responses helped inform violence prevention, preparedness, and response training.

Gun violence in any form is a compound, complex problem that consistently plagues diverse communities across the United States. As such, the problem evades simplistic, unidimensional solutions such as gun control, target hardening, and tougher sentencing. When occurring in schools, gun violence is particularly troublesome as it violates social expectations, parental needs for a safe place to entrust the education of their children, and the primary functions of educational institutions those being to provide a safe and secure space for teaching, learning, and socializing. This paper addresses the problem of gun violence in schools by application of a public health approach and a novel, direct application of the Emergency Management Cycle. These two perspectives combine to offer the ability to generate comprehensive, evidence-based options to gun violence in schools and the communities that house them. To anchor the observations and recommendations presented, the author uses epistemology, the study of knowledge and its limits, as the filter to make clear to the reader the body of evidence that is used to support assertions and recommendations. Finally, a case is made for the essential role that social workers can play in school gun violence intervention.

More than any other advanced industrial democracy, the United States is besieged by firearms violence. Each year, some 30,000 people die by gunfire. Over the course of its history, the nation has witnessed the murders of beloved public figures; massacres in workplaces and schools; and epidemics of gun violence that terrorize neighborhoods and claim tens of thousands of lives. Commanding majorities of Americans voice support for stricter controls on firearms. Yet they have never mounted a true national movement for gun control. Why? Disarmed unravels this paradox. Based on historical archives, interviews, and original survey evidence, Kristin Goss suggests that the gun control campaign has been stymied by a combination of factors, including the inability to secure patronage resources, the difficulties in articulating a message that would resonate with supporters, and strategic decisions made in the name of effective policy. The power of the so-called gun lobby has played an important role in hobbling the gun-control campaign, but that is not the entire story. Instead of pursuing a strategy of incremental change on the local and state levels, gun control advocates have sought national policies. Some 40% of state gun control laws predate the 1970s, and the gun lobby has systematically weakened even these longstanding restrictions. A compelling and engagingly written look at one of America's most divisive political issues, Disarmed illuminates the organizational, historical, and policy-related factors that constrain mass mobilization, and brings into sharp relief the agonizing dilemmas faced by advocates of gun control and other issues in the United States.

ObjectivesGun violence in the USA is a pressing social and public health issue. As rates of gun violence continue to rise, deaths resulting from such violence rise as well. School shootings, in particular, are at their highest recorded levels. In this study, we examined rates of intentional firearm deaths, mass shootings, and school mass shootings in the USA using data from the past 5 years, 2017–2022, to assess trends and reappraise prior examination of this issue.MethodsExtant data regarding shooting deaths from 2017 through 2020 were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the web-based injury statistics query and reporting system (WISQARS), and, for school shootings in particular (2017–2022), from Everytown Research & Policy.ResultsThe number of intentional firearm deaths and the crude death rates increased from 2017 to 2020 in all age categories; crude death rates rose from 4.47 in 2017 to 5.88 in 2020. School shootings made a sharp decline in 2020—understandably so, given the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent government or locally mandated school shutdowns—but rose again sharply in 2021.ConclusionsRecent data suggest continued upward trends in school shootings, school mass shootings, and related deaths over the past 5 years. Notably, gun violence disproportionately affects boys, especially Black boys, with much higher gun deaths per capita for this group than for any other group of youth. Implications for policy and practice are provided.

The scars of violence on children

This essay explores the role of shame as a mediator of thought and action in school shootings. A focus on shame widens the debates around this American societal tragedy beyond mental health concerns and gun control. The 1999 school shooting at Columbine High School in the U.S. state of Colorado, is recognized as a paradigmatic event for subsequent shooters. The lives of the two shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, reveal a shame spiral prominent in school shootings. This spiral implicates society’s relational web. The essay argues that pastoral care providers are among the social agents who can diminish and disrupt the shame spiral.

ImportanceHospitals are hot zones of the US gun injury epidemic. To shelter these facilities from the dangers of gun violence, state legislatures have enacted laws to reduce the carrying of firearms on hospital premises. However, these efforts currently face serious Second Amendment challenges in federal courts. The ongoing legal battles, which have wide-ranging implications for patient and clinician safety as well as public health generally, are setting the stage for a Supreme Court case that may decide the fate of firearm regulations in US hospitals. A permissible pathway for advancing sensible gun regulation in hospitals is urgently needed.ObservationsSince the Supreme Court established a new constitutional test for firearm laws in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen (2022), states now face unprecedentedly high barriers to enacting health-protecting legislation regarding firearms. Post-Bruen, the Supreme Court requires that laws be consistent with “this Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.” This means that states hoping to enact laws barring public carry of firearms in hospitals must demonstrate that hospitals are a “sensitive place” as a historical matter (ie, analogous to a location where firearms were traditionally restricted). By reasoning from analogy, it is clear several historical comparators exist for regulating firearms in hospitals. Although the hospital (as understood today) did not exist in the 1700s, it is sufficiently analogous to asylums and schools, to name a few examples. These settings all share a common denominator with the modern-day hospital: serving vulnerable populations or individuals who may be at heightened risk of misusing firearms.Conclusions and RelevanceThe Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms is threatening democratically enacted laws seeking to shelter hospitals from firearm violence. However, it is clear that hospitals and other health care settings are a sensitive place with compelling historical analogies. Policymakers’ strategic deployment of the sensitive places designation, along with its rightful judicial recognition in the hospital setting, are critical to upholding laws that protect health care facilities, patients, and professionals from firearm violence—a conclusion consistent with the US Constitution, history, medical ethics, and common sense.