On The Heels of Saugus High School Shooting: A retrospective look at school firearm violence

“In the context of epidemiology of school firearm violence, it is also important to know the characteristics of those who are involved in homicides and suicides at school. According to various studies, the most common characteristics of such students are that the majority (>50%) of them are males, white, experienced bullying or rejection, acquired a firearm from home or from relatives and friends, premeditated or advance planned shootings with motives, usually not involved with gangs, and confided in individuals about their motives, or left a note or threatened someone or engaged in a violent act indicating risk of future violence (Anderson et al. 2001; O’Toole 2000; Schuster 2009; Vossekuil et al. 2002; Wike and Fraser 2009).”

Prevalent Statistics Regarding Firearm Violence

Youths most likely to be shot and killed remain steadily the same. Black young males make up 82% of all deaths from gun violence. Four and half times higher than that of girls. Older youths aged 13 to 17 years are 12 times more likely than those who make up the younger category to suffer death at the hands of a firearm. This is a significant increase in the likelihood of victimization and one becomes astutely aware that puberty becomes the glaringly possible number one suspect in this statistic category. Adolescent youths have a difficult time in navigating the significant changes that take place in physical and mental growth and development that ushers in adulthood. It is not surprising that around this same age eating disorders develop in young girls. A critical psychological aspect of the difference between adolescent males and adolescent females’ use of violence can be understood by looking at introjective and projective mechanisms of psychosis. As a general rule, males are far more likely to suffer projective mechanisms of psychosis (physical violence and gun violence) whereas females are more likely to suffer introjective mechanisms of psychosis (eating disorders and cutting). In addition, hormonal changes in the body are a known factor in the onset of psychopathic symptoms and the temporary loss of conscious mindfulness. We can look to hormonal factors in the study of postpartum depression following childbirth and mothers who enter into depression and kill their children and the hormonal aspects that usher in the onset of puberty which can adversely affect the brain and individual perceptions. In addition statistic, racial and ethnic minorities, in particular, African-Americans are 10 times more likely than whites to be shot and killed (CDC 2018; Price et al. 2015). (1)

Although the Southern states and the Midwest states are more common in experiencing gun violence, urban areas have the highest rate of firearm trauma hospitalizations. Male masculinities play a big part in the retributive violence that results in the higher numbers of deaths and traumatic injury among black males.

Widespread media attention has caused the public and politicians to think of rare mass shootings at schools, such as Columbine High School (April 1999), Red Lake Senior High School (March 2005), Chardon High School (February 2012), Sandy Hook Elementary School (December 2012), and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (February 2018), and the recent Saugus High School (November 2019). These are just a few of the typical high school shootings we hear about over the media. However, these high school shootings make up rare statistics and gun violence is far less likely to occur on school grounds than the gun violence experienced by black males in densely populated urban areas. Schools still remain the safest place for children to be when it comes to gun violence. For example in the school year 2000–2001 there were 14 homicides reported “at school” and 1489 homicides reported, “away from school”. Likewise, there were 6 suicides reported “at school” and 1487 suicides “away from school”. These numbers remain fairly stable over the following years up to 2016 in which reporting of the more current years have not been shared. See Table 1 found in School Firearm Violence Prevention Practices and Policies: Functional or Folly? Violence and Gender, September 2019 issue. (1)

It is important to note that bullying remains a problem among young children placed in school settings and children with inadequate coping skills may resort to tactics that harm other students and/or themselves.

A study of high school mothers indicated that a vast majority felt the major key stakeholders in reducing gun-related violence are parents and schools. However, other major key stakeholders identified have been policymakers, law enforcement, students, pro-gun groups, gun control groups, and the general public. Research has been conducted targeting these groups through questionnaires or interviews regarding their opinions about school safety when it comes to gun violence and gun violence prevention. There remains a deeply divided belief among Republicans and Democrats regarding gun control. Pro-gun groups coincide with Republican perceptions and policy-making and Gun Control groups coincide with Democratic perceptions and policymaking. This inequality can be seen in differing state policies with regard to CAP laws. CAP laws, their enactment, enforcement, and impact are influenced by state sociopolitical climates and general firearm legislation.

Mothers Perceptions Regarding Gun Violence on School Campus

The general perceptions of mothers for reasons related to gun violence on school campus have been reported as follows through public research studies and reporting:

(1) parents do not adequately teach their children morals

(2) parents support aggressive behaviors and transmit violence to their children / violent and abusive families transmit violence to their children

(3) lack of family involvement with their children/lack of supervision over the children /inadequate parental monitoring

(4) breakdown of family values

(5) peer harassment and/or bullying

(6) inadequate mental health care services for youths

(7) easy access to firearms

Primary Prevention Policy Begins with Gun Legislation

The primary prevention of gun violence has been approached through CAP law legislation that holds gun owners accountable for the safe storage of firearms by allowing prosecutors to charge adults who carelessly store their firearms (i.e., allow them to be accessible to youths). Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia (DC) currently have CAP laws (Giffords Law Center 2018).

Second Primary Prevention by Assessing Preattack Behavior

The second form of primary prevention of adolescent firearm violence is a threat assessment of preattack behaviors. As mentioned earlier, the majority of youths involved in firearm violence in schools are likely to exhibit a change in their behaviors. The following activities, when numerous, may indicate that the youth may commit a violent act: talking about having access to a firearm, exhibiting depressive symptoms, recent victimization by peers, substance abuse, living in a low emotional closeness family, parents not knowledgable of the youth’s life, having past violent or aggressive behaviors, school suspensions/expulsions, change in school performance, preoccupation with violence (e.g., death, dismemberment), socially isolated loner, feeling persecuted, angry, and defensive are but a few of the changes that can occur. Given these circumstances, there are serious limitations to conducting formal threat assessments of potential youth firearm violence. First, few mental health professionals have been adequately trained to identify potentially violent youths. Thus, it is essential that threat assessment teams be trained on best practices regarding threat assessment procedures and practices, and to dispel misconceptions regarding the purpose of such teams. Second, most youths who make violent threats are unlikely to carry them out (braggadocios).

Thus, there is usually a high rate of false positives in threat assessments and potentially false negatives. Third, there is very limited evidence that threat assessments have resulted in fewer numbers of firearm violence incidents. Fourth, the cost–benefit ratio and return on investment for widespread threat assessments are not proven in relation to school firearm violence, and such measures may not be a high priority for schools given the numerous other issues that are considered of higher priority (and added to it the lack of resources). A recent review summarized findings from 15 years of lessons learned by using the federal model of threat assessment to prevent school shootings; there are still many unanswered questions and challenges with this approach, despite the fact that nearly half of the schools across the United States may have some type of threat assessment model in practice or in implementation stages.

Third Primary Prevention by Reporting “Leakage”

The third form of primary prevention is peer action in reporting “leakage.” Leakage occurs when youths intentionally or unintentionally communicate, usually to peers or siblings, they are going to engage in a potentially violent act. Studies of secondary school shooters have found that between 58% and 100% made threatening statements to third parties (Meloy et al. 2001; O’Toole 2000). In the shooting cases studied by the U.S. Secret Service, 81% of the adolescent shooters had at least one person who knew the shooter was thinking about or planning the violence, and 59% of the shootings had two or more people who knew about the planning (Vossekuil et al. 2002). Leakage to peers occurs in both suicide and homicide, and students need to be educated about this issue. Teachers can include such issues in their health education classes and also teach students about firearm safety, emergency response, and practice how they would deal with a peer who said he was going to bring a gun to school or had behavioral problems and verbalized a desire to die or kill others (Brank et al. 2007; Gaughan et al. 2001; Price et al. 2015). Unfortunately, a “code of silence” seems to exist in most secondary schools. There is a fear of rejection and/or retaliation by students if they tell (“tattling”) school personnel about student firearm threats or weapon carrying. At times, even serious problems that could endanger students and school personnel are not reported due to this code of silence (Kingery and Coggeshall 2001; Wike and Fraser 2009). A study of middle and secondary school students found that 40% of them had a peer tell them or another peer they were going to shoot someone, but only about one half of them claimed they would tell an adult (Gaughan et al. 2001). A study of willingness to report school weapon carrying by middle school youths found that 70% claimed they would report a student carrying a gun, but only 58% reported that they would report the student if it was a friend (Brank et al. 2007). Boys were less likely than girls to report a peer, and reporting was less likely the older the student. While the majority of attacks are premeditated and advanced threats have been made in many cases, we did not find any reports of formal education and its efficacy in students who might be preattack informed by peers that they were going to shoot someone. Thus, while such education seems plausible as a method of reducing school firearm violence, there is no evidence that such education or programs would reduce school firearm violence.

Additional Educational Primary Prevention Programs Addressing Firearm Injury Prevention

Educational interventions have also been discussed in relation to the primary prevention of firearm violence. However, most of these programs have not been adequately evaluated (e.g., Steps to Prevent Firearm Injury, which is a physician to parent educational intervention; Straight Talk About Risks (STAR), which is a teacher to students K–12 curricula; Safe Alternatives and Violence Education, which is police to juvenile offenders education program; Teens on Target and Hands Without Guns, both of which are peer-to-peer educational interventions) (Hardy 2002; Holly et al. 2019; Price et al. 2015). A study of the STAR curriculum, developed by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, is a skills-building firearm safety program. The program covered skills regarding the danger of firearms, resisting peer pressure, preventing aggressive conflicts, and making good choices. The children were told not to touch a firearm, leave the area, and tell an adult. The weeklong curriculum was taught to youths 4–7 years of age. The curriculum was found to have no effect on the children’s playing activities with a disabled semiautomatic firearm placed in the play area of the children (Hardy 2002). The children who handled the firearm often thought the gun was a toy. Only 8 of the 70 students stopped playing and reported the presence of a firearm to an adult. The second study in this area assessed the effectiveness of the NRA’s Eddie Eagle Gun Safe Program. The focus of the program is to have youths “Stop. Don’t touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult.” The study included 11 students who were ages 4 and 5. There were 5 sessions that lasted 10–15 min each and were given >5 days. One week after the program ended, the youths were assessed. The program was found to be effective in getting children to verbally repeat the gun safety message. However, a disabled firearm was placed in the play environment of the children, and none of them actually used the skills taught regarding not playing with the firearm and reporting its presence to an adult (Himle et al. 2004). A recent comprehensive review of school-based and community-based unintentional firearm injury safety education programs found that most of the programs increased the knowledge of youths (although not significantly). However, the programs did not increase the likelihood that children would not handle firearms when they encountered them in unsupervised situations (Holly et al. 2019). All of these educational programs were found to involve small samples with youths 4–9 years of age.

“There is an urgent need for a comprehensive firearm reporting and surveillance system that can be mandated across school systems nationwide involving extensive collaborations across various stakeholders (see Key stakeholders’ perceptions of the role of schools section) (Kingery and Coggeshall 2001; Modzeleski and Randazzo 2018; Wike and Fraser 2009; Yell and Rozalski 2000).” (1)

Discussion

Eliminating firearm rights is neither prudent nor feasible. The constitutional amendment that supports the right to bear arms was put in place so that men could protect themselves from forms of tyranny and abuse. Instead of abolishing the amendment, what America needs to do is control it through alternate policymaking like CAP laws that allow state prosecutors to bring charges against gun owners who do not adequately store weapons keeping them secure and out of the hands of youth. Although I maintain a “gun-free” lifestyle and a gun-free household, it doesn’t mean everyone else would want to follow suit. For this reason, gun owners should have to take responsibility for their lack of responsibility when a loaded weapon falls into the hands of a child who lacks the maturity or who has entered into a state of crisis. Children who attempted suicide and who have survived reported to deciding in >5 minutes to commit the act. This behavior parallels a temper tantrum. This may allude to the impulsive nature of youth, whereas individuals who do not possess the proclivity for tantrums may tend to think critically about “a suicide plan,” taking various aspects into consideration like the method used, location, suicide note, even recognizing at some point they may need help and seek out counseling services. Some individuals do seek out counseling services for their homicidal and suicidal ideations.

I feel those individuals who have experienced the side-effects of gun violence become better equipped in curbing firearm-related casualties. Many people who suffer casualties or trauma at the hands of gun violence understand its far-reaching effects. It’s like having a discussion about state-assisted suicide (euthanasia) with someone who had no idea what euthanasia is all about. The person isn’t adequately informed about the subject to adequately contribute to the discussion. So let me tell you a story.

When I was 10 years old my father went hunting one cold January morning. Just another typical hunting day with him and his buddies. The simple act of forgetting to turn on the gun safety mechanism resulted in the catastrophic loss of his left leg. My father spent several months in the hospital undergoing several surgeries to repair his leg. At this time, we weren’t allowed to see him as it was part of hospital policy not to allow children in the hospital. When he finally came home he was an amputee. My father, once a strong and solid man, a blue-collar worker from the laboring class, came home a diminished man. He somehow looked smaller to me, shrunken in stature. He had lost weight and muscle mass as a result of what I can only guess was an acute case of atrophy. We can understand what the physical loss of a limb might be like, we can understand the difficulty it imposes to mobility, but what are the psychological effects? What are the mental scars left to a man who is expected to be the protector and provider to a family? Does he question his manhood? Does he compare himself to the outside world looking at “whole” men? Although I have yet to read Jacques Lacan’s work, I frequently find myself thinking about this following quote, “The images of man’s body is the principle of every unity he perceives in objects … all the objects of his world are always structured around the wondering shadows of his own ego.” As a parent interested in educating, The Discus Thrower sheds excellent light on what it is like to experience the violence of traumatic change, death, and sickness. (2) These Objects rooted in the relational world of every child are the very Objects that reinforce and structure his ego and the wondering shadows about his own ego in the formation of individual identity.

Source References:

(1) James H. Price and Jagdish Khubchandani. School Firearm Violence Prevention Practices and Policies: Functional or Folly? Violence and Gender, Vol. 6, №3, Original Articles Published September 10, 2019 (Retrieved Online November 19, 2019) http://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2018.0044

(2) Richard Selzer. The Discus Thrower. (Retrieved Online November 20, 2019) http://drcoffman.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/6/7/106772317/the_discus_thrower.pdf