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

News

37273 readers
2042 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


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


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


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. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sure, but there's still a difference between school violence with guns and school violence with fists

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Typically, the opportunity to get a gun. But the violence that motivates either is typically the same. That’s why school violence prevention is, itself, typically the same, regardless of how it may end.

[–] farcaster@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

"My son got beat up in school today"

"My son got shot and killed in school today"

It's the guns. It's always been the guns. And that's why this country is uniquely dealing with this problem. It's not hard to see it, unless you don't want to.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Stopping violence before either of those things happens is the point. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather neither of those happen. 

Taking the nihilist and defeatist attitude that one of those must happen, and therefore we must settle for it with half-measures meant only to prevent the other is bullshit. 

[–] farcaster@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Restricting access to guns is specifically achievable (see also: most of the rest of the world) and would save many lives.

In tandem, sure let's work on preventing violence in general. I'm all in favor, but achieving this semi-utopian goal seems far more challenging.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Nobody said it wouldn’t be difficult, but it’s better than putting up with a bullied child— or a dead one.

Schools should be safe spaces for children to learn, not battlefields to navigate.

[–] farcaster@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Then restrict gun ownership. It's the most rational action which can be taken to stop American classrooms being stained by blood.

But... I know I am just venting. I know this isn't going to happen. Millions of Americans are demonstrably fine with other people losing their little girl or boy, their small bodies torn apart by bullets, just so they can have a gun for whatever reason. It's just the way it is, sadly.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Obviously, gun ownership should be restricted. What I’m saying, is that should be one part of a multifaceted approach  to address the many types of school violence. But my point here is that regulating gun ownership does not address the root cause of school violence, only a symptom. 

[–] farcaster@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Obviously, gun ownership should be restricted.

Judging by the downvote brigade whenever somebody argues for gun control, which also plagues Reddit, it seems not so obvious to many.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Might not be what you’re saying, but how you’re saying it

[–] farcaster@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Perhaps. I think it's pretty obvious no matter how it's phrased, or who posts it, comments critical of unrestricted gun ownership typically get downvoted without a lot of replies. At least you are engaging and we're having a conversation.