this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023

157 points (91.5% liked)

News

37284 readers

2677 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

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

157

Most school shootings aren’t mass killings, study finds, and they’re often driven by community violence (www.cnn.com)

submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

89 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] IzzyScissor@kbin.social 39 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Jesus Fucking Christ, pick a side, article:

Average age of shooter was 16
"It’s not really about gun ownership"
More than half of the shooters got the firearm they used from a family member or a relative. About 30% got a weapon from the illegal market, while 22% obtained weapons from friends or acquaintances.

So 70% got it through someone who legally owned the gun already, and 30% bought it illegally. A 16 year old cannot purchase a gun legally.

SURE SEEMS LIKE PEOPLE OWNING A GUN IS A FACTOR, THEN, HUH

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

If you expect me to secure my guns properly, then that makes it more difficult for me to imagine the totally bitchin' scenario where dozens of armed criminals break into my house and have need to immediately defend my family like John Wick

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago

People are downvoting you, because you called their logical and well thought out plans a fantasy. You are a big meanie to dash their dreams like that.

/s for sarcasm

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is "community violence" the politically correct terminology for blaming gangs?

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Probably. I've been saying it for a while now, the root cause of gun violence in the US is socioeconomic inequality and lack of mental healthcare.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] wabafee@lemm.ee 13 points 2 years ago

The fact that there is enough statistics for this study to happen is fucked up.

[–] Chestrade@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

Jeez, imagine having that much data between 1990 and 2016.

[–] rrrurboatlibad 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So, I read the CNN article and the CNN-linked journal paper it was based on and I don't understand how the CNN aithor, Amanda Musa, was able to read the journal article and jump to her conclusions except through overwhelming prejudice and bias. Holy cow, this is irresponsible reporting. From the journal article itself, here is a relevantbsummary:

Overall, these findings stress the critical public health message concerning the secure storage of firearms, especially in households with adolescents. Our study suggests that initiatives limiting adolescent access to firearms, such as child access prevention laws or efforts to decrease illegal gun trafficking, might effectively prevent school shooting incidents.23,24 Furthermore, hospital-based initiatives centered on screening for firearm accessibility and exposure for inpatients could be fruitful in preventing gun violence, both inside and outside schools.25

[–] rrrurboatlibad 1 points 2 years ago

Also the demographic statistics in the journal article are information but not informative. They're not meant by the journal article's authors to support the gross conclusion Musa extrapolated from it.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (36 children)

I've been saying this for years now, and everyone just wants to say "GUNS BAD BAN GUNS".

Fix the root issues, and you solve the problem. If you don't address root problems, then you only change the way that the problem manifests. You could remove guns, and then you'd see a rash of stabbings, with calls for parents to lock their kitchen knives in safes, and bans on knives with blades over 2".

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Are you saying there are no poor or crazy people in places like England? Because there are plenty of them, they just don't have guns.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (35 replies)

[–] the_q@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Well if this isn't some pro gun anti black propaganda I don't know what is.

load more comments